2 ms·
That's really interesting. So if there were multiple "global passive adversaries" then the network would become stronger and stronger? At least until one gives
by jsmeaton 12y ago
That's really interesting. So if there were multiple "global passive adversaries" then the network would become stronger and stronger? At least until one gives up and removes all their nodes at once.
- derefr 12y agoPretty much. Imagine if China (used for population reasons) managed to send 300 million spies to the US to socially-engineer their way into all US citizens' personal lives. Now imagine India (again, for population reasons) simultaneously trying the same thing: now, one half of the time, the Chinese are just spying on "American citizens" who are really Indian spies, the Indians are just spying on Chinese spies, and one half of Americans go unmonitored. It's sort of the same game-theoretic advantage you get from participating in a battle royale competition over participating in a 1v1 competition: for each new adversary you face, that adversary is also dragged down by all the other adversaries and becomes that much easier to deal with. This really only applies specifically to Sybil attacks, though.