Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> You also need to be sure that the others don't ignore the single altruistic source.

Well sure, but the code people run listens to all the providers. Everyone is listened to automatically. That's part of the social consensus encoded in software. If you don't follow along, you end up on your own fork. That's how these systems work — e.g, you also need to make sure that people don't "ignore" the consequences of failed hash checks throughout a cryptocurrency codebase.

It would be quite possible to run your provider on a machine hidden somewhere, and inject your transactions to nodes at random points in the network. It'd be pretty tough to silence someone directly.

Miner censorship attacks, e.g. a 51% attack, are also possible (i.e., all miners, or a sufficient majority, refuse to mine your tx until the epoch ends). This kind of censorship threat is always present for all kinds of transactions; in theory they're particularly pernicious for protocols like this one that require a tx to be submitted by a deadline. But no one is claiming that these systems are completely invulnerable to a misbehaving majority of miners or validators.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: