Sybil and mirroring attacks

[Anonymous No.17255503]

"Sybil attacks resulting in false data, mirroring, and collusion in general may be
eliminated by the use of trusted hardware in our long-term strategy (see Section 6)."

It never explains how. Because you can't fix this with trusted hardware.

Basically your oracle marketplace will be 90% dominated by 2 or 3 players and they will be able to kick out any new comers by secretly agreeing to deviate from the truth at select intervals, causing the new comer to lose their stake.

Am I missing something?

[Anonymous No.17255557]

No takers huh

I guess you are just a bunch of neets eating eachother's lies

[Anonymous No.17255618]

>>17255503
Delete this

[Anonymous No.17255627]

But it is described you imbecile. Read the related papers.

[Anonymous No.17255629]

As long as it moons before then, who cares?

[Anonymous No.17255631]

>>17255503
>>17255618
>FoiL
>onions
toplel

[Anonymous No.17255636]

DR;NS

[Anonymous No.17255652]

>>17255627

You haven't read it. What the OP posted is all they say.

The "chainlink oracle" is a very simple trusted contract implementation that suggests you use their ERC20 token as payment to the trusted source (you could use anything, a made up token, SAI, whatever)

[Anonymous No.17255658]

>>17255627
>But it is described you imbecile. Read the related papers.

What related paper? This is from the whitepaper. Is there a second white paper?

They don't have a solution to a sybil attack, they have a centralised "certification" service. If I wanted a centralised service I'd just use a centralised oracle (you imbecile.)

[Anonymous No.17255676]

>>17255658

The weird thing is Chainlink has essentially become a trusted oracle at this point. It wouldn't bother me personally except that people in the Ethereum space often claim they are decentralized, which is insane.

The Chainlink team just runs centralized oracles. It'll work until they decide to censor something, they lose keys somehow, or a government entity decides to shut them down.

[Anonymous No.17255684]

>>17255676

To clarify their token is still totally useless and unrelated to the centralized oracle service their team provides, but that's a whole other thing since most ERC20s are totally useless.

[Anonymous No.17255685]

>>17255676
This, so much this.

[Anonymous No.17255691]

>>17255676
>The Chainlink team just runs centralized oracles. It'll work until they decide to censor something, they lose keys somehow, or a government entity decides to shut them down.

Right they actually describe that in the paper.

The paper does not actually propose a decentralised oracle service, but rather a centralised oracle service with a layer of indirection.

I.e. the chainlink company "OKs" you and then you provide an oracle service, or they OK themselves and then they provide an oracle service, either way it all comes back to the one company.

Not. Decentralised.

[Anonymous No.17255721]

>>17255691

Thats not at all what they or anyone is claiming. Every single description of Chainlink, including their own says they are decentralized.

Like right here: https://chain.link/features/

That's really my only beef with them.

Why anyone values the shitcoin thats tangentially related bothers me but thats not Chainlink's fault entirely.

[Anonymous No.17255769]

>>17255721
>Thats not at all what they or anyone is claiming

They don't have a solution to sybil attacks so they propose a centralised "OK" service. It's outright fraud to say this is decentralised. See below.

"5.3 Certification Service
While our Validation and Reputation Systems are intended to address a broad range
of faulty behaviors by oracles and is proposed as a way to ensure system integrity in
the vast majority of cases, ChainLink may also include an additional mechanism called
a Certification Service. Its goal is to prevent and/or remediate rare but catastrophic
events, specifically en bloc cheating in the form of Sybil and mirroring attacks, which
we now explain."

"Certification Service design. The ChainLink Certification Service would seek to
provide general integrity and availability assurance, detecting and helping prevent
mirroring and colluding oracle quorums in the short-to-medium term. The Certification Service would issue endorsements of high-quality oracle providers. We emphasize
again, as noted above, that the service will only rate providers for the benefit of users.
It is not meant to dictate oracle node participation or non-participation in the system."

[Anonymous No.17255784]

>>17255769

Oh we're in agreement. My point was exactly that it isn't ok for them to claim to be decentralized then just run a centralized Oracle service. I thought you were excusing it, my bad.

[Anonymous No.17255786]

>>17255503
>>17255557
>p-please respond to my stale fud from 2018
yeah for sure you're totally right linkies btfo just filter the link threads out and ignore it henceforth
thanks for looking out for everyone else and warning people about this asset you don't hold, no one has ever thought of this angle before
s
h

[Anonymous No.17255816]

>>17255503
but how can they trust each other to report the same false data if they can't see inside eachother's enclaves let alone affect the execution of what's happening inside their own enclave LOOOOL

[Anonymous No.17255843]

Simply reposting, not my write up. This should help you nulinkers a bit.

A while back there was a clip that cirulated where a bitcoin maximalist said something to the effect of "if someone were to solve the oracle problem, it would be worth more than all of crypto"


He then went on to give the standard counterargument that sybill attacks fundamentally prevent resolution of the oracle problem.


He was almost right


Here's the reality: in isolation without external factors this is correct. Put differently: if all of crypto was created de-novo and no data/api providers existed before the advent of chainlink, there would exist an equilibrium at which sybill attacks would be more profitable than delivering quality data or outputs. If this was the case, there are ways of breaking this state, but they involve exchange of value first in a non-deterministic manner and then using the experience from that to bootstrap an oracle network.


Fortunately, before crypto the world did exist. This led to trust systems being developed to reign in this situation (lawsuits, word-of-mouth reputation, the value of name recognition) in a world of non-deterministic interactions. For chainlink this is an absolute blessing.


The entwork will launch with actors providing APIs and data that are linked to their real-world names and practices. This means that even outside of the sybill equilibrium, there will be significant pressure to have high quality inputs and outputs. A bank can't expect to keep its good name if it makes a habit of screwing its smart contract customers while keeping good practices with its standard customers.

[Anonymous No.17255844]

>>17255816

Noone has to report "the same" false data. Each Chainlink oracle has a list of approved addresses. Any one of them can take the bounty and provide an answer and nothing can be done to stop them or verify the data they gave.

[Anonymous No.17255853]

>>17255843
So what follows logically from this? The initial network has to tap into this entropy of trust left over from the non-deterministic world. In other words, it can't be decentralized initially unless the network wants to go through a growth period where bad behavior is actually game-theory optimal (with asymptotic approach to trustworthy behavior).


Human beings being what they are, such a period would sour people against the use of smart contracts if they could be scammed early on, even if they were safer than conventional alternatives.


For an example of this look at common perception of bitcoin. It has provided 24/7 value transfer at discount rates since its launch 10 years ago. During that time billions have been transferred without loss. On top of that it has increased in value from less than a dollar to over a thousand dollars. Any stock, bond or precious metal that did that would be hailed as the greatest investment in the history of the world.


But human perception matters.


For that reason the chainlink network cannot launch decentralized and must launch with as much provider/node transparency as possible. This sets the floor for node behavior when the network does decentralize. Only though doing it this way will people, with all their flaws, see the value.


Put another way: the only way to successfully launch any oracle network is from the top down with respect to real-world trust. If you could launch a perfectly coded, perfectly transparent, perfectly decentralized oracle network right now you would still lose to chainlink. An oracle network must first have the buy in (and implicit pledge to perform) of those agencies with the most real world trust. The network which harvests these residual trust sources from the real world is the one that wins, and the one that wins is the de facto monopoly because those that can't harvest this resource must traverse the sybill period to launch.

[Anonymous No.17255863]

>>17255853
You are about to see an entire industry (the trust assurances industry) be swallowed whole by a decentralized network. The marginal value of all trust assurances services in the world (contracts lawyers, non-criminal courts, administrative workers etc.) will become the chainlink network. Those groups which don't make this transition will cease to exist. In 20 years it will be hard to imagine how the world functioned without such a network, just as it's hard to imagine a world without the internet now.


You're about to watch the whole world realize, slowly, this new reality. Remember that it takes hours and hours of dedication to get what I'm saying right now. Next year you'll just have to be a CEO/CTO level person to understand. The year after that, someone who is considered smart and cutting edge. You're about to witness all of this happen.


At this point, there is nothing that can be done to stop it. Even if the whole chainlink team died, the cat is out of the bag. Once traditional trust assurers understand this, such a network can't not exist.


Be good and enjoy the ride frens

[Anonymous No.17255869]

>>17255863

You at no point in that whole rambling incoherent nonsense word salad describe how they will actually go from centralized to decentralized.

I don't think you even know what being decentralized means.

[Anonymous No.17255913]

>>17255784
>Oh we're in agreement. My point was exactly that it isn't ok for them to claim to be decentralized then just run a centralized Oracle service. I thought you were excusing it, my bad.

all good fren

>>17255786
>>p-please respond to my stale fud from 2018

It's straight out of the whitepaper. It's not stale FUD, it's played out exactly how you expect it would. They are centralised and they have no reasonable way to decentralise because they never solve the sybil problem, in fact it's notable missing from section 6 in their paper despite being referenced earlier as being there.

>>17255843
>there would exist an equilibrium at which sybill attacks would be more profitable than delivering quality data or outputs.

That's not the most likely attack scenario. There is an incentive for a large existing player or group of large existing players who run hundreds or thousands of allegedly decentralised oracles on the service to crowd out new honest nodes by having all their nodes tell the same lie at the same time. They can do this without affecting their reputation because the system selects for the majority opinion not the true opinion. They can also do this without reducing customer demand because they only need to do it once or twice a day and can pick a piece of data that is not that important or that can be modified without changing the semantic meaning of it.

[Anonymous No.17255956]

>>17255863
>You are about to see an entire industry (the trust assurances industry) be swallowed whole by a decentralized network. Th
you're delusional

and still there's no solution to the sybil problem

without a solution to the sybil problem chainlink is just a centralised oracle and I can just use any other centralised oracle without their token and without engaging with them, in fact I am basically incentivized to do exactly that because chainlink creates incentives toward oracles service providers forming a cabal that can change outcomes and keep new honest nodes out while still making a killing

[Anonymous No.17255957]

>>17255913

You're giving them too much credit. The "sybil attack" as it exists right now is a single actor lying.

here is the relevant part of the oracle contract: https://github.com/smartcontractkit/chainlink/blob/881b2ce8b87af060347461fa98429e5c20ec9186/evm-contracts/src/v0.6/Oracle.sol#L26

Whoever owns one of those keys can just put whatever data they want for any answer. It's that stupid.

[Anonymous No.17255967]

>>17255957
>Whoever owns one of those keys can just put whatever data they want for any answer. It's that stupid.

Yeah I'm talking about when their network is in full swing. Agree at the moment with just one entity providing everything its even more stupid.

[Anonymous No.17255985]

>>17255956

Right now the only reason people are using them is because they've lied so well and because its extremely difficult to find/make reliable oracles. Even if a company knows theyre centralized and they shouldn't use them it's likely they'll be able to safely use them for a limited period of time (say 1-2 years) until they can find a replcement (like uniswap v2 coming out soon for price oracles)

As far as large non-crypto companies using them, they wont. No one here has ever been able to point to an ACTUAL USE of Chainlink by any company ever. They can only point to blog entries referencing Chainlink by a company or to their name in a PP slide.

[Anonymous No.17256085]

>>17255985
good info

nice blathering with you sir

[Anonymous No.17256129]

>>17255631
wat

[Anonymous No.17256160]

sufficient initial decentralisation should nullify this risk. This is literally like saying, omg i can hack the bitcoin network if i get 51% of the network, THIS IS A FATAL FLAW

[Anonymous No.17256181]

>>17255863
Based. This is how it will happen. Control the initial quorum. Build trust. On board a larger quorum with external reputation to protect. Then introduce staking, reputation, and threshold signatures where you can get lagre quorum of nodes lile 100 to 100 with reputation to back and economic stake at hand where even if some misbehave they are weeded out and punished. This starts to open up decentralized oracle models. You are incetivized to build reputation and put skin in the game. At the end of the day each user will have the ability to design their oracle model how they want.

[Anonymous No.17256302]

>>17256160
That is a fatal flaw

[Anonymous No.17256400]

>>17255503
>2 or 3 main players will control the entire market.
This is exactly why Linkpool shares were always the real moonshot not link

[Anonymous No.17256537]

>>17256302
show us how then genius. So far it's worked out fine. Game theory is a thing you know. The more you decentralise a network the further the incentive for people to act honestly.

[Anonymous No.17256612]

>>17255956
Where do you think those 700K stacks of LINK have been going? Trusted entities are being sold bulk OTC to set up their nodes. After this phase the network should be sufficently decentralised to allow non-approved nodes to stake and provide data.

[Anonymous No.17256706]

>>17256302
the brainlet is revealed

[Anonymous No.17256741]

the best low risk investment in crypto with massive profit potential is tachyon protocol, they have made tremdious progress in a short while.

[Anonymous No.17256751]

>>17256537
>show us how then genius.
Yeah china controls 51% of the hash rate. You need a diagram on how that plays out?

51% attacks are very real

with chainlink since it has no real barrier to entry other than being in cahoots with the existing nodes you can just keep spinning up "independent" oracles and drown out everyone else, getting 51% is trivial.

[Anonymous No.17256801]

>>17255816
>but how can they trust each other to report the same false data if they can't see inside eachother's enclaves let alone affect the execution of what's happening inside their own enclave LOOOOL

Let say I own 50 nodes out of 70 that provide oracle data to a contract.

All I need to do is have my 50 nodes report the same wrong lie to the contract at the same time. The 20 honest nodes lose their stake and lose reputation. Now I own 50 out of 50 nodes.

"Muh enclaves" doesn't solve shit. Sybil problem is still unsolved.

[Anonymous No.17256813]

>>17256801
thanks just bought 100k

[Anonymous No.17256833]

>>17256801
>"Muh enclaves" doesn't solve shit
of course it does retard
how can you fudge it if you dont even know what your node is doing

[Anonymous No.17256856]

>>17256751
>You need a diagram on how that plays out?
Please tell us the future oh genius wizard

>with chainlink since it has no real barrier to entry other than being in cahoots with the existing nodes you can just keep spinning up "independent" oracles and drown out everyone else, getting 51% is trivial.
Why do you think chainlink has 1/3 of all tokens for incentivising node operators and they are KYCing teams currently? They have over 30 teams currently KYCed and reviewed. And a huge backlog of teams waiting to get reviewd and KYCed. Now you go and try to get them to collude and kill the project thats currently paying them each $200k a year to run a couple computers see how that goes. Or better yet wait for there to be hundreds of KYCed teams and then try get them to collude and get their stake burnt after staking comes out.

[Anonymous No.17256857]

>>17256833
>how can you fudge it if you dont even know what your node is doing

you don't know how enclaves work do you

you have to put the software into the enclave in order to have it execute

as the node operator you still control what that software is

[Anonymous No.17256870]

>>17256856
>Please tell us the future oh genius wizard

1. The chinese government tells miners to exclude transactions that it doesn't like

2. you can't do anything about it

[Anonymous No.17256872]

>>17256857
ohhh shit
its retarded

sorry fren, i didnt know

[Anonymous No.17256873]

>>17256801
KYC kills your sybill bullshit, now go make up some other bullshit about how KYC is bad.

[Anonymous No.17256882]

>>17256856
>Why do you think chainlink has 1/3 of all tokens for incentivising node operators and they are KYCing teams currently? They have over 30 teams currently KYCed and reviewed. And a huge backlog of teams waiting to get reviewd and KYCed. Now you go and try to get them to collude and kill the project thats currently paying them each $200k a year to run a couple computers see how that goes. Or better yet wait for there to be hundreds of KYCed teams and then try get them to collude and get their stake burnt after staking comes out.

This is centralisation

>>17256872
>sorry fren, i didnt know

you're not a programmer are you

[Anonymous No.17256904]

>>17255658
Jesus this still. What do you think price incentive and a shut ton of nodes are for. How dumb can you be.

[Anonymous No.17256905]

>>17256882
its ok big boy, rub that big brain of yours on your stack of NANO

im sure its everyone else whos wrong, not you

[Anonymous No.17256916]

>>17256882
there you go, played right into my hand. >>17256873

[Anonymous No.17256955]

>>17256904
>Jesus this still. What do you think price incentive and a shut ton of nodes are for. How dumb can you be.

you don't know what a sybil attack is do you

>>17256905
>im sure its everyone else whos wrong, not you

I don't own NANO. You don't have an argument because you're not a programmer and you don't understand how enclaves work.

From an external perspective it is not possible to tell if the server I am interacting with is using an enclave or not. That should tell you basically everything you need to know about how foolish your opinion is.

>>17256873
>KYC kills your sybill bullshit, now go make up some other bullshit about how KYC is bad.
>>17256916
>there you go, played right into my hand. >>17256873

KYC is a centralised service provided by the chainlink company. No one is saying they can't do this but it isn't decentralised, you brainlet.

[Anonymous No.17256994]

>>17256955
>the chainlink company
kek
look at big brain over here

[Anonymous No.17257021]

>>17256994
who is going to do your KYC and how can you trust them?

[Anonymous No.17257074]

>>17256955
If you can't fathom that the approach to decentralisation (slow step by step) they are taking is literally defeating the problem you keep talking about, you're more of a brainlet than i thought.

[Anonymous No.17257107]

>>17257074
>If you can't fathom that the approach to decentralisation (slow step by step) they are taking is literally defeating the problem you keep talking about, you're more of a brainlet than i thought.

If you can't fathom that without a sybil solution all chainlink can and will ever be is a centralised oracle service you are beyond hope

Not to put too fine a point on it but I'm probably the only person here who has actually read the chainlink white paper and is a programmer by profession.

Frankly I am unimpressed by the "explanations" given by link marines in this thread. I think I have my answer.

[Anonymous No.17257117]

>>17255503
This Fud has been addressed long ago.
The key is to start centralized and realize established, trusted nodes.
After that, the aggregation mechanism is an incentive for honest nodes to join and punishes dishonest nodes, which means it can only grow healthier and more immune to bad nodes. After that, the reputation system makes it very hard and costly to run several nodes at once, especially high profile nodes which need to stake lots of Link. It will be mostly this staking which makes Sybil attacks 1. Very costly and 2. Very stupid.

[Anonymous No.17257155]

>>17257117
the incentive system is very unlikely to stop sybil attacks, markets naturally concentrate to 2-3 market leaders and oracle service providers will be no different

providers who are otherwise honest will sybil and make an illusion of choice when actually you are using the same 2-3 providers

there's no way to detect this even with a centralised KYC, because corporate structuring makes that easy

chainlink is centralised and will never be anything but

[Anonymous No.17257211]

>>17257155
>doesn't listen to reason, keeps spouting bullshit even after it's debuked
Looks like we're done here

[Anonymous No.17257221]

>>17257211
>has no arguments is a cult believer in a centralised cult coin

yep looks like we're done

[Anonymous No.17257245]

>>17257221
who cares if it's centralized. Everything is centralized to some extent.

[Anonymous No.17257254]

>>17257155
Not really, for one I know lots of people on this board who will want to run their own node when the network opens up a bit more.
It's passive income, you would be stupid not to. But you can't run many because you need an amount of Link to stake.
That's also the reason i won't be doing linkpool, I don't trust them with my own stake. If they make a mistake and lose my link i will have no control over it.
There are people with like 300k link who can afford to set up multiple nodes, but enough to take over the network? Only Chainlink the company itself has that kind of money, and they use it actively to diversify the nodes.

[Anonymous No.17257258]

>>17257245
>who cares if it's centralized. Everything is centralized to some extent.

That's actually a perfectly fine position to take but don't call it decentralised if it's not.

I agree with you, lots of centralised services are very useful.

[Anonymous No.17257267]

>>17257254
I guess we'll see if that works out for you. Strongly suspect that you will have "cartel" problems with sybil attacks causing 51% attacks causing honest small nodes like yours to lose their stakes.

[Anonymous No.17257339]

>>17257267
We'll see. Unlike Btc we have an active benevolent majority holder working to prevent this. And if someone ever comes up with better anti-sybil measures, it will be Chainlink that implements them. They're the only bet at this point, and unlike btc they are adaptable.

[Anonymous No.17257359]

>>17257339
to be clear I'm not saying chainlink wont work as advertised except that it won't be decentralised

but it causes the secondary question: why use it if its centralised, why not just use any centralised third party oracle service with a good reputation on the market in general

anyway good chatting with you all, may the greenest wojack win

[Anonymous No.17257429]

>>17257258
You're either being obtuse or are some quixotic blockchain originalist.

a) The network is in the process of being built out, the team is moving away from providing certification. It was an initial and necessary step.
b) There is clearly decentralisation present as many of the companies are well established entities. By providing incorrect data they endanger not only their Chainlink nodes but their reputation with other chains.
c) There are always going to be off-chain mechanisms to resolve issues - ie. traditional legal recourse. See the talk that the Chainlink GC was in recently.

[Anonymous No.17257439]

>be hypothetical ultrawhale with hundreds of LINK nodes
>build a high reputation through long service time and history of successful operations etc etc
>be generating steady, secure gains but decide to go full evil maniac
>launch sybil attack on a super high value contract
>spoof incorrect answer and steal millions of dollars
>????
>profit..?

Now you're stuck with millions of dollars worth of LINK in a blockchain wallet, your highly valued nodes end up being blacklisted and the full force of litigation is launched against you in meatspace.
So what's the next step of your master plan?

[Anonymous No.17257864]

>>17255503
An oracle that tells lies ruins the value of Chainlink.

[Anonymous No.17258197]

>>17256857
But the SC owner gets signature about what program was run in enclave.

[Anonymous No.17258537]

>>17258197
>But the SC owner gets signature about what program was run in enclave.

The server still has to report that somehow back to the SC.

Unless intel are going to put secret private keys inside CPUs that even the programmer can't access that then in turn digitally sign the instructions run inside the enclave, you can never be sure, as an outside observer (e.g. an observer who doesn't have direct access to the hardware), what code actually ran in an enclave and what didn't.

[Anonymous No.17258562]

Just use Kleros lol

The PNK token is a critical part of the cryptoeconomic mechanism because it prevents sybil attacks
and provides incentives for Kleros to produce true verdicts. The expectation of winning or losing
tokens gives jurors the incentive to self-select into the subcourts where they truly have expertise, to
analyze the evidence carefully and to vote honestly. A juror who chooses the wrong cases, who does
not analyze the evidence carefully or who does not vote honestly is more likely to vote incoherently
with others and, as a result, will suffer an economic loss.

[Anonymous No.17258597]

>>17258537
>Unless intel are going to put secret private keys inside CPUs that even the programmer can't access that then in turn digitally sign the instructions run inside the enclave
that's pretty clever actually

[Anonymous No.17258653]

>>17258562
>Just use Kleros lol

don't you start

[Anonymous No.17258701]

>>17255843
ah, the good ol' Entwork pasta