3 ms·
TY for the explainer. To make sure I understand, it sounds like a Sybil attack can exploit a hash function because ultimately, what is being hashed does not mat
by 54b4b54 5y ago
TY for the explainer. To make sure I understand, it sounds like a Sybil attack can exploit a hash function because ultimately, what is being hashed does not matter and to verify what is being hashed requires centralization.
- mempko 5y agoNot necessarily. Maybe the scanners have a key that only it's creators can derive from some master key. The hash could come signed and all the public verification has to do is match against a public key. You don't need a database of hashes and you don't need a centralized db of source scans. Each scan hash could even chain with a previous scan hash and you can limit the number of times a key is good for, hence limiting number of scans a device can have. Only way to fake this would be to have the master key.
- teraflop 5y agoWhich, as always, raises the question of why a blockchain is necessary. If the creators' master key can be trusted with the power to decide who gets new coins, why don't the creators just store everyone's account balance in a database, and get rid of the enormous performance and energy costs of a distributed ledger?
- mempko 5y agoExactly!
- _jal 5y ago> raises the question of why a blockchain is necessary For marketing, of course. Blockchains are magic, the rubes won't flock otherwise.
- tlrobinson 5y agoI don't know anything about Worldcoin specifically, but you could argue a case for an initial period of semi-centralized "fair" distribution, after which the protocol would (verifiably) cease to allow minting of new coins.