Re: [SocialSwarm-D] D-CENT: state of the art - not

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 05:33:10PM +0100, Harry Halpin wrote:
> Given that we want our work to run cross-platform (including on
> mobile) and p2p networks still all suffer from sybil attacks, the
> W3C is going to focus on Web.

The phrase "p2p networks still all suffer from sybil attacks"
says more about rethoric strategies than about p2p networks.
Reminds me of climate experts on TV.

Anyway, here is a choice of scientific papers on the topic
suggesting that sybil attacks can be countered (and GNUnet
does so, but even Tor: what do you achieve with a sybil
attack on Tor?). Are you suggesting all these independent
scientists are wrong and we should in no way dare to use
evil evil P2P technology?


Resnick, P, Sami, R - Sybilproof Transitive Trust Protocols
	https://gnunet.org/node/1454

Gamiochipi, RLL, Griffin, D, Clegg, RG, Mykoniati, E, Rio, M -
A Sybilproof Indirect Reciprocity Mechanism for Peer-to-Peer Networks
	https://gnunet.org/node/1850

Cheng, A, Friedman, E - Sybilproof reputation mechanisms
	https://gnunet.org/node/1381

Levine, BN, Shields, C, Margolin, BN - 
A Survey of Solutions to the Sybil Attack
	https://gnunet.org/node/1432

Cholez, T, Chrisment, I, Festor, O -
Evaluation of Sybil Attacks Protection Schemes in KAD
	https://gnunet.org/node/1512

Al-Ameen, MN, Wright, M - Persea: A Sybil-resistant Social DHT
	https://gnunet.org/persea

Yang, Z, Wilson, C, Wang, X, Gao, T, Zhao, BY, Dai, Y -
Uncovering social network sybils in the wild
	https://gnunet.org/node/1748

Yu, H, Kaminsky, M, Gibbons, PB, Flaxman, A -
SybilGuard: defending against sybil attacks via social networks
	https://gnunet.org/node/1466


See, GNUnet even runs the vastest bibliography on the topic.
Guess what, secushare is planning to use its social network
to further decrease risks of sybil attacks for GNUnet. Now
please point me to the papers that explain how all P2P networks
suffer from sybil attacks.

> We are happy to see other approaches, and do keep us in touch, but
> any non-Web solution is out of scope in general for W3C Working
> Groups.  Good luck with GNUnet and other approaches!

That is a short-sighted point of view considering that these
platforms are already offering higher security web services than
the W3C web currently can offer. Public-key based routing is
safer than X.509 and any of .i2p, .onion or .gnu offer that kind
of superior security compared to https. It is no surprise more
and more websites are going light.. to where authenticity and
confidentiality is actually provided. Not to mention the shift
from the ancient client/mainframe model to the new P2P share
and distribute models, which I expect to take place next. In
that context the web is just a bunch of HTML+CSS files traveling
the Internet free from ties to GoogleEtagServices.com and the like.
HTTP's share of network traffic will decrease.

There's a revolution going on, not only in Ukraine.


-- 
	    http://youbroketheinternet.org
 ircs://psyced.org/youbroketheinternet

Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2014 21:27:48 UTC