-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17/07/12 18:51, Tony Arcieri wrote: > Now we actually do the collaborative filtering calculation: we look > for peers that are similar to ourself, by inputting our own > transfer history and the sparse matrix we calculated in the > previous step. > > The output should be peers similar to ourself: namely ones which > experience a similar history of success/failures and similar > transfer rates. With enough information, this should begin to > reveal this like which peers are "closest" to us on the network > (i.e. least bottlenecked by the network relative to us, not > geographical closeness or closeness in the DHT) > > To be highly rated by such a function, the Sybil would have to > pretend to be a normal peer long enough to establish behavioral > data that might make it appear similar enough in its interactions > that the collaborative filtering function might select it for use > in the DHT or potentially storing files.
Thanks for the explanation. Could you say a bit more about what information a peer publishes (and signs?) about itself and others? What prevents a Sybil from claiming to have had the same interactions as another peer, in order to gain that peer's trust? Cheers, Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQBeVOAAoJEBEET9GfxSfMWKIH/258rRBz86kHTDJUyIDOsxan yC8zuD1bsGAANieH2T1qP3tRvJ7tmwUzpHffJN4fB1MdEOvdhgBW1fyMNd3OFbDQ +fBxh5hfHPQd64c8qhBu8S6TFEjiK0hKFS7dsW1L9reWyUZnOyDj8QmG1dj5/iQH /hQl7auRqpFKRF2ggy8rMuTu0dCDrflvH8DDHLju20hzCuPJ40itveMADgaS9l49 zSBoJ5O2dkOuPsJK9a/Hdu0HR5red942OeRmGI6Z/QCGk1WhB2VE7W2GkwXca/o2 ZOu8PqK5XF/42eJtXZsBADeAQdc8i///fy/+xxwm67AwcFxavVBT8fI+nttF5os= =B+gp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
