3 ms·
They are launched with identity-keys which are, under proper processes, unique & secret. These are potentially rotated to new keys created off-world, early, so
by gojomo 5y ago
They are launched with identity-keys which are, under proper processes, unique & secret. These are potentially rotated to new keys created off-world, early, so that even if unauthorized on-world keys remain, the window that those could be misused is small & early.
Multiple probes contribute to the consensus validation of a single cryptocurrency.
As satellites fail or move out of the practical distance in light-minutes, new ones take their place. (Or maybe, they're just put into long-orbits that keep them out of practical compromise range? CometCoin?)
- stickfigure 5y agoWhy is this better than having hardware on earth?
- gojomo 5y agoHardware on Earth can be compromised any time later - via coercion, inducements to collude, etc. The usual disadvantage of far-space probes – older tech that can't be upgraded – becomes an advantage in the trusted-validator role, as long as the initial prep/launch isn't corrupted. The window of potential compromises is shrunk.
- stickfigure 5y agoSoftware in space gets upgraded; the base stations the satellites communicate with can be compromised; you have to trust that the builders didn't include any backdoors or unexpected behavior (deliberately or accidentally). Seems like this has all the same problems as the earth option, but is more expensive.
- gojomo 5y agoIt only gets upgraded if it was designed to be so upgraded, which adds cost/complexity. If you don't manage your backdoor before the probe leaves human hands, you can't add it later. And, other mechanisms (some described in sibling threads) can help drive the risk of a backdoor very low, & the liklihood of any compromise being widely revealed (if ever exploited) very high.