On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 5:14 PM, David Barrett <[email protected]>wrote:
> Though really, I wonder if any of that matters. Even if you *could* > build a client that kept resetting its identity and took advantage of > whatever "new peer trust" existed, would anybody really bother? I > mean, Bittorrent is absolutely vulnerable to the same thing (see > BitThief for a working example -- last version released in 2008), but > that hasn't stopped it from taking over the world. > > At the end of the day, if the system is sufficiently fair, it's easier > to just play by the rules than try to steal pennies from your > neighbors. Just make the mainline version work great and the few > people who want to get tricky won't upset the broader balance. Pretty much... the system is subject to one-time gaming by Sybils if peers choose to interact with other peers outside their web of trust. If it's really a problem, people can alter their settings and choose not to interact with peers who are outside their web of trust. -- Tony Arcieri
_______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
