The cold hard truth

Short-term: chainlink certification service
Long-term: trusted hardware

"The certification service is used to prevent nodes from cheating with their answers. One form of attack, freeloading, is discussed in other sections of the white paper, but the certification service is focused on different types of attacks, sybil and mirroring. A sybil attack is where an attacker would control multiple nodes in the ChainLink network, attempting to control enough so that their falsified answer would be accepted as the correct answer given to a smart contract. Mirroring could also be used by compromised nodes to obtain their data from one another, instead of querying a data source individually. The long-term plan against both attacks is to utilize trusted hardware (Intel SGX), but until then, the certification service will detect and help prevent these attacks by issuing endorsements of high-quality oracle providers. These endorsements would be based on the node's rating within the validation system and would perform spot-checking of answers compared to other trusted nodes. The certification service also introduces the need for off-chain audits of nodes to ensure that they comply with security standards. Finally, the security service will perform reviews of answers after they have been given to the smart contract to ensure that the data has not been falsified."

>being this full of shit

/thread

>get certified, get high rep
>coordinate falsified information to smart contract
>make off with money

Prove me wrong

The Virgin argumentation Vs the Chad Hominem

Attached: 03-35-58-1525553073297.gif (400x350, 74K)

I can't prove you wrong, you're right– Sybil attacks are a threat. The point is the team is aware of the threat and are actively working to prevent them. Neither of us have a crystal ball that lets us see into the future. Only time will tell how successful CL is.

The only other person in this thread with an above average IQ. The rest of you brainlets need to kys

All we asked you to do was elaborate and you couldn't.

Attached: 1527444464387.jpg (481x198, 10K)

Here, have some more FUD. On this Jow Forumslinktrader thread OP raises the issue of Sybil attacks and no one from the team responds even though they're fairly active in other threads.

reddit.com/r/LINKTrader/comments/757lyu/is_it_possible_to_abuse_the_protocol_by/

And another: reddit.com/r/LINKTrader/comments/80ii1n/so_what_about_sybil_attacks/

Meanwhile, a search of Jow Forumschainlink for "Sybil" returns 0 results.

BTW the book/movie the Sybil attack is named after is incredibly creepy. Almost as scary to me as Chainlink failing.

Attached: sybil.jpg (600x450, 43K)

And just like that, deluded linkies have nothing else to say. Real tough talk coming from you faggots earlier, what happened? Can’t handle the truth?

What truth? You literally posted that an issue that's been known and addressed in the whitepaper will kill the project. It's clear that the team doesn't think it's an unsolvable, project killing problem. You've not provided anything additional. No points, no arguments, nothing.
Only a complete moron thinks there's no chance of the project failing. Anything in this market is highly speculative and literally everyone knows this.

Attached: 1526617904946.jpg (500x625, 48K)

Your concern is actually the most bullish case for the link token. An attacker could try to reputation farm with dummy contracts... although since their contract would randomly choose qualifying nodes, I imagine the parameters they set to make only their own nodes qualifying would have to be very creative. But say they are able to generate reputation to their own nodes in planning an attack.

They would also have to stake a lot of link. Each node would have to hoard a huge amount of link to qualify for the penalty requirement of the target contract. Again, it’s not guaranteed that the attacker’s nodes will be the only ones selected to fulfill the target contract. The Sybil attacker would have to have over 50% of the nodes qualifying for the contract , in the entire Chainlink Network, in order to have a chance at succeeding.

The contract, aware of this threat, imposes a link penalty required from each node. Now the Sybil attacker needs to stake that amount of link on all nodes, which is over 50% of the qualifying nodes.

And then, once they are successful, and the attack has been noticed, everyone stops using Chainlink, the token value tanks, and the attacker loses out on the value of the link required to carry out the attack.

I’m sure someone can do the math on it, but if you’re looking to carry out an attack once the network is established and highly active, youre probably going to need a contract that misappropriated hundreds of millions of dollars to make the cost of the attack worth it.

Sounds like you are saying it is bullish in the short term. After such an attack though, enterprises may stay as far away as possible from it.

I’m saying it’s bullish because high value contracts will make the link staking requirement prohibitively expensive to carry out a Sybil attack, which translates to a much lower circulating supply and thus high token value

Well, at least this doesn't affect the end user much. And if one node operator does it, others can do it too so it will kinda even out. At one point it won't be profitable to run more nodes so it won't lead to infinite mirror nodes.

Well i'm probably going to have sold a portion of my stack by the time link is managing multimillion dollar contracts on a regular basis. But its more likely that the problem will have been solved by then

1) Reputation providers can validate node operator identities off chain (this should end it right here)
2) No one will use reputation providers with high value contracts that don't validate off chain
3) Penalty payments increase the cost for failing a Sybil attack (along with ruining a majority of your nodes reputation)
4) Nodes don't know if they will be selected before hand, even if they have enough reputation
5) Running multiple nodes means you're paying for gas for each response per node
6) There's no way to build up your reputation in secret, similar to a long range attack where you would mine a second chain with more hashpower. You're stuck with legitimately building reputation on providers that people actually use in the open

1 million nodes

you saw my FUD post didnt you? lol can you back that up now?

hello vornth

Rory here.
We will backcheck every node operator.
We will also ask random CL hodlers to fuck hard those node operators. We expect this to solve the Sybil problem.

vornth here, node operators will all need to face extensive psychological evaluation to ensure they aren't suffering from multiple personality disorder.

Just leave em to me

Attached: 1510020065213.jpg (714x552, 131K)

FAT
A
T