3 ms·
That's a fair question but how do you stop a powerful adversary from flooding it with false information or how do you protect the consensus system from being Mi
by UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
That's a fair question but how do you stop a powerful adversary from flooding it with false information or how do you protect the consensus system from being MitM-ed, more SSL?
Plus one could argue that a P2P consensus system would be a massive breach of people's privacy. Do you really want everyone upstream knowing what sites you're visiting even if it is just at the domain level?
My point is that while this problem is both true and easy to quantify, a solution would wind up being almost as complex as SSL itself. And it seems like a drop in the bucket when DNS remains insecure, SMTP is still highly common, and HTTP (i.e. not HTTPS) is widespread.
That all being said, if someone developed this as e.g. a Chrome Extension, I'd consider installing it as long as some privacy guarantees were in place.
- rubyfan 12y agoGreat points, I'd view privacy to be a key ingredient to make something like this work. I don't like built in phishing protection browser capabilities for this same reason. Also great points about being a drop in the bucket... I asked a similar question tonight "Ask HN: Why don't companies sign email the way we do with HTTPS?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9098079 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9098079 It seems even the basic security measures we think are "good" really have no acceptable level of traceability, wide-spread visibility or audibility.