📅 Original date posted:2015-03-27
📝 Original message:On Friday, 27 March 2015, at 4:57 pm, Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:16:43AM -0400, Matt Whitlock wrote:
> > I agree that someone could do this, but why is that a problem? Isn't the goal of this exercise to ensure more full nodes on the network? In order to be able to answer the challenges, an entity would need to be running a full node somewhere. Thus, they have contributed at least one additional full node to the network. I could certainly see a case for a company to host hundreds of lightweight (e.g., EC2) servers all backed by a single copy of the block chain. Why force every single machine to have its own copy? All you really need to require is that each agency/participant have its own copy.
>
> They would not even have to run one. It could just pass the query to a random other node, and forward its result :)
Ah, easy way to fix that. In fact, in my first draft of my suggestion, I had the answer, but I removed it because I thought it was superfluous.
Challenge:
"Send me: SHA256(SHA256(concatenation of N pseudo-randomly selected bytes from the block chain | prover's nonce | verifier's nonce))."
The nonces are from the "version" messages exchanged at connection startup. A node can't pass the buck because it can't control the nonce that a random other node chooses.
Matt Whitlock [ARCHIVE] /
npub17q…upwet
2023-06-07 15:32:05
in reply to nevent1q…q954
Author Public Key
npub17qxssk9sj2r7jswvh3y32e7vwz7mcckhz33gk9nurdmw0lhsfkgswupwetPublished at
2023-06-07 15:32:05Event JSON
{
"id": "35d66f066da5cd26fc1a1689cffc9810bbe870a40724a6f53f96a376bc2fc104",
"pubkey": "f00d0858b09287e941ccbc491567cc70bdbc62d714628b167c1b76e7fef04d91",
"created_at": 1686151925,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"aec2e2b18209ddcfa5d1a18863a1af4d14b80da9d7f8b7d06dfabe62f3ba4546",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"3bd51e4c392382ca814f0e2f5662708892fd11f529b561132ac94973f207060b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f00d0858b09287e941ccbc491567cc70bdbc62d714628b167c1b76e7fef04d91"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-03-27\n📝 Original message:On Friday, 27 March 2015, at 4:57 pm, Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote:\n\u003e On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:16:43AM -0400, Matt Whitlock wrote:\n\u003e \u003e I agree that someone could do this, but why is that a problem? Isn't the goal of this exercise to ensure more full nodes on the network? In order to be able to answer the challenges, an entity would need to be running a full node somewhere. Thus, they have contributed at least one additional full node to the network. I could certainly see a case for a company to host hundreds of lightweight (e.g., EC2) servers all backed by a single copy of the block chain. Why force every single machine to have its own copy? All you really need to require is that each agency/participant have its own copy.\n\u003e \n\u003e They would not even have to run one. It could just pass the query to a random other node, and forward its result :)\n\nAh, easy way to fix that. In fact, in my first draft of my suggestion, I had the answer, but I removed it because I thought it was superfluous.\n\nChallenge:\n\"Send me: SHA256(SHA256(concatenation of N pseudo-randomly selected bytes from the block chain | prover's nonce | verifier's nonce)).\"\n\nThe nonces are from the \"version\" messages exchanged at connection startup. A node can't pass the buck because it can't control the nonce that a random other node chooses.",
"sig": "34d92b10b150746c6fdffa03bdf676de93a3c80fa5e9f5e0b58b42be37a5ff04fc5529489a15b2c8ad55bed4c1442c3ba8d3fcbf6306749caf77addada459a8f"
}