From: "Jeremy Spilman" <jeremy@taplink•co>
To: bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] "network disruption as a service" and proof of local storage
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 22:14:23 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <op.xvzkt9nryldrnw@laptop-air> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <550704CF.2000808@certimix.com>
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 09:29:03 -0700, Sergio Lerner
<sergiolerner@certimix•com> wrote:
> I proposed a (what I think) is better protocol for Proof of Storage that
> I call "Proof of Local storage" here
> https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2014/11/03/proof-of-local-blockchain-storage/
Thanks so much for publishing this. It could be useful in any application
to try to prove a keyed copy of some data.
If I understand correctly, transforming raw blocks to keyed blocks takes
512x longer than transforming keyed blocks back to raw. The key is public,
like the IP, or some other value which perhaps changes less frequently.
The verifier keeps blocks in the keyed format, and can decrypt quickly to
provide raw data, or use the keyed data for hashing to try to demonstrate
they have a pre-keyed copy.
>
> Two protocols can be performed to prove local possession:
> 1. (prover and verifier pay a small cost) The verifier sends a seed to
> derive some n random indexes, and the prover must respond with the hash
> of the decrypted blocks within a certain time bound. Suppose that
> decryption of n blocks take 100 msec (+-100 msec of network jitter).
> Then an attacker must have a computer 50 faster to be able to
> consistently cheat. The last 50 blocks should not be part of the list to
> allow nodes to catch-up and encrypt the blocks in background.
>
Can you clarify, the prover is hashing random blocks of *decrypted*, as-in
raw, blockchain data? What does this prove other than, perhaps, fast
random IO of the blockchain? (which is useful in its own right, e.g. as a
way to ensure only full-node IO-bound mining if baked into the PoW)
How is the verifier validating the response without possession of the full
blockchain?
> 2. (prover pay a high cost, verified pays negligible cost). The verifier
> chooses a seed n, and then pre-computes the encrypted blocks derived
> from the seed using the prover's IP. Then the verifier sends the seed,
> and the prover must respond with the hash of the encrypted blocks within
> a certain time bound. The proved does not require to do any PH
> decryption, just take the encrypted blocks for indexes derived from the
> seed, hash them and send the hash back to the verifier. The verifier
> validates the time bound and the hash.
The challenger requests a hash-sum of a random sequence of indices of the
keyed data, based on a challenge seed. So in a few bytes round-trip we can
see how fast the computation is completed. If the data is already keyed,
the hash of 1,000 random 1024-bit blocks should come back much faster than
if the data needs to be keyed on-the-fly.
To verify the response, the challenger would have to use the peer's
identity key and perform the slower transforms on those same 1,000 blocks
and see that the result matches, so cost to challenger is higher than
prover, assuming they actually do the computation.
Which brings up a good tweak, a full-node challenger could have to do the
computation first, then also include something like HMAC(identityKey,
expectedResult). The prover could then know if the challenger was honest
before returning a result, and blacklist them if not.
>
> Both protocols can me made available by the client, under different
> states. For instance, new nodes are only allowed to request protocol 2
> (and so they get an initial assurance their are connecting to
> full-nodes). After a first-time mutual authentication, they are allowed
> to periodically perform protocol 1. Also new nodes may be allowed to
> perform protocol 1 with a small index set, and increase the index set
> over time, to get higher confidence.
I guess a new-node could see if different servers all returned the same
challenge response, but they would have no way to know if the challenge
response was technically correct, or sybil.
I also wonder about the effect of spinning disk versus SSD. Seek time for
1,000 random reads is either nearly zero or dominating depending on the
two modes. I wonder if a sequential read from a random index is a possible
trade-off,; it doesn't prove possession of the whole chain nearly as well,
but at least iowait converges significantly. Then again, that presupposes
a specific ordering on disk which might not exist. In X years it will all
be solid-state, so eventually it's moot.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-24 6:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-13 20:01 [Bitcoin-development] Criminal complaints against "network disruption as a service" startups Justus Ranvier
2015-03-13 21:48 ` Mike Hearn
2015-03-13 22:03 ` Justus Ranvier
2015-03-13 22:08 ` Mike Hearn
2015-03-13 22:16 ` Justus Ranvier
2015-03-13 22:24 ` Mike Hearn
2015-03-13 22:38 ` Justus Ranvier
2015-03-16 8:44 ` Jan Møller
2015-03-16 16:29 ` [Bitcoin-development] "network disruption as a service" and proof of local storage Sergio Lerner
2015-03-24 5:14 ` Jeremy Spilman [this message]
2015-03-26 22:09 ` Sergio Lerner
2015-03-26 23:04 ` Matt Whitlock
2015-03-27 14:32 ` Robert McKay
2015-03-27 15:16 ` Matt Whitlock
2015-03-27 15:32 ` Robert McKay
[not found] ` <20150327155730.GB20754@amethyst.visucore.com>
2015-03-27 16:00 ` Matt Whitlock
2015-03-27 16:08 ` Matt Whitlock
2015-03-27 18:40 ` Jeremy Spilman
2015-04-01 2:34 ` Sergio Lerner
2015-03-16 19:33 ` [Bitcoin-development] Criminal complaints against "network disruption as a service" startups Aaron Voisine
2015-03-23 2:44 ` odinn
2015-03-23 10:06 [Bitcoin-development] "network disruption as a service" and proof of local storage Thy Shizzle
2015-03-28 2:55 Thy Shizzle
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=op.xvzkt9nryldrnw@laptop-air \
--to=jeremy@taplink$(echo .)co \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox