4 ms·
Proof of work isn't very practical here, because computation is a lot cheaper in datacenters than on phones.
by jefftk 4y ago
Proof of work isn't very practical here, because computation is a lot cheaper in datacenters than on phones.
- supriyo-biswas 4y agoThe trick is to prevent the offloading of the proof-of-work challenge to another device, as suggested in the Picasso paper[1]. [1] https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-data/pdf/45581.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-...
- jefftk 4y agoNeat! This does seem like it should work! Semantic quibble: it's less "proof of work" and more "proof of hardware+work". Or, as they call it, hardware-bound proof of work. The reason you can't offload the challenge to a more powerful device is that they rely on identifying stable differences for each device class that ultimately trace down to the hardware they're running on.
- mindslight 4y agoFrom reading the abstract, isn't this just exploiting the same class of security vulnerabilities that the OP is lamenting are being fixed?
- jefftk 4y agoNot sure. Maybe not, if it's about device-specific information instead of headed-vs-headless distinctions?
- schlauerfox 4y agoCan privacy be preserved with zero knowledge proofs? I don't like the idea of universal fingerprinted devices in an already heavily authoritarian world.