Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, June 6, 2020 12:00 PM, Karl <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 6, 2020, 7:49 AM other.arkitech <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Saturday, June 6, 2020 11:38 AM, Karl <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2020, 7:18 AM other.arkitech <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. >>>> >>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>> On Saturday, June 6, 2020 10:17 AM, Karl <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020, 7:29 PM other.arkitech >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> so your system doesn't have a bloated chain, which is nice. The >>>>>>> 'consensus' is handled by voting...based one IP address one vote. But >>>>>>> how robust is relying on IP addresses at the end of the day? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> IPv4 provides unique features no other protocol has. address space is >>>>>> saturated (scarce) and addresses are not cheap. It is a a nice tool for >>>>>> Sybil control >>>>> >>>>> OA, when you say this people start disregarding what you say because it >>>>> is false. >>>>> >>>>> Any software developer can get thousands of IP addresses by altering a >>>>> piece of pirated software to include something new of their own design >>>>> and sharing it in a venue where it hasn't been shared on before. There >>>>> are many many other ways and people _think_ of them, _use_ them, are >>>>> _observed_ using them, and things spread and grow. >>>> >>>> what? any developer geting thousands of public IPv4 addresses by modifying >>>> software? >>>> Nop. That's not true. >>>> (Or I haven't understood well what you say) >>> >>> People go to places on the internet to download things. Others can upload >>> things to those places to download. You can upload something that lies >>> about what it is doing, and gives you use of the ip address of the >>> downloader's computer when run. Do you understand? >>> >>> It sounds like this is surprising to you? >> >> so you refer to computers running malware, that case is contemplated in the >> design as an 'evil node' > > it sounds like you haven't addressed a sybil attack from massively > distributed malware, which is fine nobody can cover everything. not sure > where the design lives. If the malware is distributed in a bigger scale than the honest software, indeed, the evil network becomes the 'honest' one to the eyes of the software, that's 51% attack. Provided a world distribution of people that can be evil/honest of 80%-20%, the likeliness of an evil network overtaking the honest one is lower than the opposite. The evil network wont work if many evil nodes run behind same IP, so the malware must meet the same distribution enforcement applied to the honest net. Nodes running malware must be geographically distributed, so local marketplaces spreading malware have less chances to spread worldwide in order to compromise the network.
