Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by woah 2950 days ago
Is this Sybil resistant though?
2 comments

That's my question as well, the introduction says:

> Specifically, the system operates by repeatedly sampling the network at random, and steering the correct nodes towards the same outcome.

Obviously random sampling could be trivially manipulated if anybody can spawn nodes very easily. I expected that the "fix" would be in the "Snowflake" algorithm but I don't see how it prevents that:

> When the protocol is correctly parameterized for a given threshold of Byzantine nodes and a desired guarantee, it can ensure both safety (P1) and liveness (P2).

But isn't that threshold effectively infinite? If you look at something like the bitcoin network there are very few incentives to maintain full nodes. Meanwhile if having a majority of nodes let you cheat and steer the network (which is not the case for BTC thanks to PoW) the incentive to spawn a huge amount of byzantine nodes would be very high.

After that the paper introduces the notion of "confidence" which might be the key to unraveling all that but I haven't yet fully understood that part. I don't have more time to look into it at the moment, hopefully somebody else will.

You'd need to use this in a PoS style trusted set award. The internet couldn't scale to an arbitrarily sized fully connected, chatty network anyways.