5 ms·

From the project's readme: >Please do not use the public swarm to process sensitive data. We ask for that because it is an open network, and it is technically

From the project's readme: >Please do not use the public swarm to process sensitive data. We ask for that because it is an open network, and it is technically possible for peers serving model layers to recover input data and model outputs or modify them in a malicious way. Instead, you can set up a private Petals swarm hosted by people and organization you trust, who are authorized to process your data. This is what blockchain and staking tokens is for. (Part of the reason, at least) You act maliciously, the network slashes your stake. "pinky promise not to do bad stuff" only goes so far... and it's really not far at all. You can trust "trusted" organizations or private individuals, but they have no incentives to ensure that the service works as intended, regardless of intent.

amelius 4y ago
A blockchain does not magically solve security issues. In fact, it adds traceability. And data stored in it can never be deleted. Just to name a few issues.
- birracerveza 4y ago
  > A blockchain does not magically solve security issues. No, but staking is certainly an improvement over "pinky promise", and it requires a public blockchain. > issues I'm fairly sure those are features, not issues. You are free to disagree.
- menzoic 4y ago
  > A blockchain does not magically solve security issues. This is a weird statement. Blockchain security is real and it isn't "magic". Blockchain is specifically designed to secure decentralized applications. > In fact, it adds traceability. And data stored in it can never be deleted. Just to name a few issues. These aren't issues, these are part of the security model. Traceability is fine here because everything is pseudonymous, if you want to avoid that use a chain that has untraceable transactions with zero knowledge proofs (zero traceability). > And data stored in it can never be deleted. Just to name a few issues. Storing data on blockchain is extremely expensive. Only hashes are stored on chain, not the data itself. Hashes are much different from encryption because they're irreversible.
taink 4y ago
Are you arguing for the processing of sensitive data on a public proof-of-stake blockchain? First, automating the detection of malicious acts against sensitive data seems pretty difficult. So this can't be implemented to systematically occur, and has to be determined after the fact by an investigation. Then, if a malicious act has been detected, the stake is slashed (and the acts are reverted where possible). Is my understanding sound so far? Because this would mean in any case where a slashed stake is considered an "acceptable cost" to the bad actor, then the sensitive data is fairly accessible -- the stake is effectively a paywall. And raising the stake is a difficult decision because higher stake means less actors and higher risk of collusion. I mean this is probably fine for a very large public blockchain where detecting malicious acts is not as difficult or where the malicious act is not very profitable, but sensitive data can, depending on its nature, be extremely profitable to exploit (and as I stated, I don't see how it could be easily detected). With sensitive data, "trusting" an organization only means having a legal agreement or strategic alliance with a third party. In these circumstances the consequences are usually more serious for the malicious actor than the loss of an arbitrary amount of money. I've seen suggestions to do sensitive (e.g. medical) data processing on the ethereum blockchain from some enthusiasts and I have never been able to understand this beyond assuming they have a insufficient threat model in mind for this kind of data.

amelius 4y ago

A blockchain does not magically solve security issues. In fact, it adds traceability. And data stored in it can never be deleted. Just to name a few issues.

birracerveza 4y ago
> A blockchain does not magically solve security issues. No, but staking is certainly an improvement over "pinky promise", and it requires a public blockchain. > issues I'm fairly sure those are features, not issues. You are free to disagree.
menzoic 4y ago
> A blockchain does not magically solve security issues. This is a weird statement. Blockchain security is real and it isn't "magic". Blockchain is specifically designed to secure decentralized applications. > In fact, it adds traceability. And data stored in it can never be deleted. Just to name a few issues. These aren't issues, these are part of the security model. Traceability is fine here because everything is pseudonymous, if you want to avoid that use a chain that has untraceable transactions with zero knowledge proofs (zero traceability). > And data stored in it can never be deleted. Just to name a few issues. Storing data on blockchain is extremely expensive. Only hashes are stored on chain, not the data itself. Hashes are much different from encryption because they're irreversible.

taink 4y ago

Are you arguing for the processing of sensitive data on a public proof-of-stake blockchain? First, automating the detection of malicious acts against sensitive data seems pretty difficult. So this can't be implemented to systematically occur, and has to be determined after the fact by an investigation. Then, if a malicious act has been detected, the stake is slashed (and the acts are reverted where possible). Is my understanding sound so far? Because this would mean in any case where a slashed stake is considered an "acceptable cost" to the bad actor, then the sensitive data is fairly accessible -- the stake is effectively a paywall. And raising the stake is a difficult decision because higher stake means less actors and higher risk of collusion. I mean this is probably fine for a very large public blockchain where detecting malicious acts is not as difficult or where the malicious act is not very profitable, but sensitive data can, depending on its nature, be extremely profitable to exploit (and as I stated, I don't see how it could be easily detected). With sensitive data, "trusting" an organization only means having a legal agreement or strategic alliance with a third party. In these circumstances the consequences are usually more serious for the malicious actor than the loss of an arbitrary amount of money. I've seen suggestions to do sensitive (e.g. medical) data processing on the ethereum blockchain from some enthusiasts and I have never been able to understand this beyond assuming they have a insufficient threat model in mind for this kind of data.