Tahoe LAFS + cryptocurrency compensation system
bin.echo at gmail.com
bin.echo at gmail.com
Mon Apr 28 09:58:50 UTC 2014
They need to prove they have all the data in the block.
The private key is generated by hashing the nonce+DATA of the block.
The UUID is only to create an address that can fit in a TX so Bob can
discover if he has the chunk to hash.
Not knowing how LAFS works internally, I don't know if it would be
possible for say "Eve" to clone blobs as they are transmitted. Because
the erasure blocks are already encrypted, maybe LAFS does not bother
transmitting them through an encrypted channel?
The interesting thing here is that even if Eve did clone blocks to try
to snake Bob's bounty, she is only hurting Bob. Alice's data is still
safe. Eve would need to store all of Alice's data, just as Bob would
have had to. When she sees the bounty up for grabs, she will also need
to hash it faster and grab the bounty faster than Bob, which means
Eves storage would actually be more desirable than Bobs. (Not saying
that such an obviously nasty race condition is a good thing. Only
making an observation.)
Are the erasure blocks world readable in LAFS? I don't know what
assumptions LAFS was built with. I'm still getting up to speed on what
the foundation is here. Hopefully Eve has no easy way to clone blocks
Bob would be very motivated to protect the blocks entrusted to him.
But the fact that he could intentionally give it to someone else to
take care of should be seen a feature. Alice doesn't care who has her
data, just that it still exists. Bob might want to hand over the
stewardship of the data to someone else or migrate it to some other
storage under his own control.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:19 AM, Ed Kapitein <ed at kapitein.org> wrote:
> On 04/28/14 10:21, bin.echo at gmail.com wrote:
>> Here is my simple idea to tie a zero knowledge automated
>> cryptocurrency compensation system into Tahoe LAFS.
>> Say Alice has a blob of data she wants to store. Alice advertises to
>> the network and finds a partner willing to take her blob of data. (The
>> network is a grid of Tahoe LAFS Storage Servers)
>> Bob excepts the blob of data and stores it, knowing that we will get
>> paid in the future for the space he wasn't using in the first place.
> interested to hear what people think. Is there anything obvious I have
> missed? _______________________________________________
> What if multiple people claim to have stored the block?
> The UUID would be the same, and so would the private key.
> Anyone with that knowledge could claim the bounty right?
> Kind regards,
> tahoe-dev mailing list
> tahoe-dev at tahoe-lafs.org
More information about the tahoe-dev