[mskd12]

The adversary in your statement seems like a static one. Given enough nodes in the committee (100's), it should be possible to make sure the case you specify never happens.

And, I'd think fixing the committee is worse, as it presents a static point of attack from adversarial POV. If you want any amount of decentralization, handling churn seems essential.

No, I was thinking about Devcon, but I don't want to travel half way across the world ;)

[jMyles]

We'd love to meet y'all. Devcon is a truly awesome time, but securing tickets is a non-trivial task.

> And, I'd think fixing the committee is worse, as it presents a static point of attack from adversarial POV. If you want any amount of decentralization, handling churn seems essential.

Interesting; I have often had the opposite sense: that involving a larger cohort of nodes generally increases the risk of collusion.

Of course, the consequences of collusion with Ursula are quite a lot less (she can refuse to revoke, but cannot recover the secret). This comes at a cost of needing to know Bob's public key prior to access being granted. It's really a very different formula.

We have often pondered (sometimes out loud) about adding some variety of Shamir's Character after Ursula hits mainnet.