4 ms·

Similar systems were proposed in the late '90s/early 2000s (hashcash/micropayments) to combat spam. The big problem isn't a technological one, it's that it pres

Similar systems were proposed in the late '90s/early 2000s (hashcash/micropayments) to combat spam. The big problem isn't a technological one, it's that it presupposes some "sweet spot" price (negligible for legitimate users, yet prohibitive for abusers) that has never been shown to exist in reality. (also, you're arguably just moving the problem to DDoSing the payment processing / firewall mechanism)

emporas 2y ago
> Similar systems were proposed in the late '90s/early 2000s (hashcash/micropayments) to combat spam. These ideas indeed exist for decades. > The big problem isn't a technological one, it's that it presupposes some "sweet spot" price (negligible for legitimate users, yet prohibitive for abusers) that has never been shown to exist in reality. Advances in technology, software and hardware, make it easier and easier for that sweet spot to exist. That sweet spot, didn't exist in the past, certainly, but we are close right now. One example that i think is useful here, is aluminum cans for fizzy drinks. Aluminum, a strong metal compared to cardboard or plastic or glass, is better at withstanding pressurized gases without exploding. The downside, is that it's more expensive. When manufacturing prices dropped down a lot, then it was feasible to drink half a liter of liquid and just throw away the metal. Aluminum still not free though, but the small price did worth it. Huge waste of energy as well to smelt all that metal and throw it away after 10 minutes of drinking, but it is economically viable. One could manufacture Titanium cans, and drink even more fizzy drinks. But that's not economically viable as of today. > you're arguably just moving the problem to DDoSing the payment processing / firewall mechanism. Yes, the problem is moved elsewhere, that's the weak link in the scheme i described. The thing is that a flood of transactions still costs money. Blockchains cannot be flooded just with requests, they have to be flooded by transactions. Take a look at the article [1] which outlines some ideas. I don't agree with a lot of things in there, but it states the problem and gives some numbers. The theory when it comes to blockchain deterring DDoS attacks (and other kind of attacks), is that there are not bad guys in general, just rational economic actors who use dirty tricks. When a dirty trick starts to cost money, and profit disappears from an attack, then the rational economic actor will stop the attack. The bad guy will resume the attack regardless of profit, but that's one of the axioms of the theory, that there are no bad guys. [1] https://www.dlnews.com/articles/defi/ddos-attacks-are-an-increasing-problem-for-blockchains/ https://www.dlnews.com/articles/defi/ddos-attacks-are-an-inc...

emporas 2y ago

> Similar systems were proposed in the late '90s/early 2000s (hashcash/micropayments) to combat spam. These ideas indeed exist for decades. > The big problem isn't a technological one, it's that it presupposes some "sweet spot" price (negligible for legitimate users, yet prohibitive for abusers) that has never been shown to exist in reality. Advances in technology, software and hardware, make it easier and easier for that sweet spot to exist. That sweet spot, didn't exist in the past, certainly, but we are close right now. One example that i think is useful here, is aluminum cans for fizzy drinks. Aluminum, a strong metal compared to cardboard or plastic or glass, is better at withstanding pressurized gases without exploding. The downside, is that it's more expensive. When manufacturing prices dropped down a lot, then it was feasible to drink half a liter of liquid and just throw away the metal. Aluminum still not free though, but the small price did worth it. Huge waste of energy as well to smelt all that metal and throw it away after 10 minutes of drinking, but it is economically viable. One could manufacture Titanium cans, and drink even more fizzy drinks. But that's not economically viable as of today. > you're arguably just moving the problem to DDoSing the payment processing / firewall mechanism. Yes, the problem is moved elsewhere, that's the weak link in the scheme i described. The thing is that a flood of transactions still costs money. Blockchains cannot be flooded just with requests, they have to be flooded by transactions. Take a look at the article [1] which outlines some ideas. I don't agree with a lot of things in there, but it states the problem and gives some numbers. The theory when it comes to blockchain deterring DDoS attacks (and other kind of attacks), is that there are not bad guys in general, just rational economic actors who use dirty tricks. When a dirty trick starts to cost money, and profit disappears from an attack, then the rational economic actor will stop the attack. The bad guy will resume the attack regardless of profit, but that's one of the axioms of the theory, that there are no bad guys. [1] https://www.dlnews.com/articles/defi/ddos-attacks-are-an-increasing-problem-for-blockchains/ https://www.dlnews.com/articles/defi/ddos-attacks-are-an-inc...