DOCSLIB.ORG

Decentralized Proof-Of-Unique-Human

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Decentralized Proof-Of-Unique-Human UniqueID: Decentralized Proof-of-Unique-Human Mohammad-Javad Hajialikhani Mohammad-Mahdi Jahanara Department of Computer Engineering Department of Computer Engineering Sharif University of Technology Sharif University of Technology [email protected] [email protected] Abstract—Bitcoin and Ethereum are novel mechanisms for such a ledger. A monetary system can be reduced to statements decentralizing the concept of money and computation. Extending in forms of “X has c coins” and “X gives Y c coins”. decentralization to the human identity concept, we can think of Bitcoin [1] just records these statements -transactions- in its using blockchain for creating a list of verified human identities with a one-person-one-ID property. UniqueID is a Decentralized Blockchain. Nature of identity verification is very close to Autonomous Organization(DAO) for maintaining human identi- this record logic because identity is simply some information ties such that every physical human entity can have no more that about you, and some claims about the correctness of those one account. One part of this identity is simply the user’s claim information by other people. on one of his unique, permanent, and measurable characteristics UniqueID aims to bring online and decentralized one- -biometrics. Blockchain has proved its integrity as a platform for storing and performing computations on such claims. The person-one-account system based on biometric data for rec- biggest challenge here is to ensure that the user has submitted ognizing people, human verifiers for identity verification pro- his own valid biometric data. Human verifiers can check if there cesses, and blockchain for recording data. Similar to Bitcoin is any inconsistency in other users’ data, by peer-to-peer checks. which incentivizes people who contribute their computational For preventing bad behavior and centralization in the verification power to network with new Bitcoins, UniqueID uses a token process, UniqueID benefits from novel governance mechanisms to choose verifiers and punish unjust ones. Also, there are incentives system and a novel governance mechanism to incentivize for honest verifiers and users by newly generated tokens. We human verifiers and distributing operations while preventing show how the users’ privacy can be preserved by using state- the creation of a monopoly of power and bad behavior. of-the-art cryptographic techniques, and so they can use their Recently there have been efforts in order to create decen- identity without any concerns for votings, financial and banking tralized identity verification systems with different approaches. purposes, social media accounts, reputation systems etc. [3–5] are examples of such systems. To the best of our I. INTRODUCTION knowledge, among all the systems which provide a unique Identity verification has always been an important prob- account for every person, none of them are permissionless, lem in online systems. While identity is a key to solve a fully decentralized, and permanent at the same time. wide range of challenges, including Sybil attacks [16] and Identity is also an important problem, not just in the digital accountable votings, there is no universal system for holding world. Roots of many nation-wide issues are identity-related human identities. Identity databases are usually created and issues. Over 1 billion people do not have any identity docu- managed by governments or financial institutions privately. ment, and can not participate in financial and legal transactions Social media and messengers solved the problem partially [6]. Old institutions for democracy are changing too slowly by relying on other systems such as E-mail, mobile phone and are not efficient, because of bureaucratic and paper-based number, credit card information, and other reputable social identities leads to costly votings [7]. Universal basic income, as a novel idea, can be executed only in the existence of a arXiv:1806.07583v1 [cs.CR] 20 Jun 2018 media accounts. These methods are not suitable for highly critical applications(e.g. voting) and prone to violating users worldwide identity system [8]. privacy. Currently, there is not any system for assigning every II. PROBLEM SPECIFICATION online human exactly one account, which can be used for In this section, we define our problem formally. logging into other systems as well. Centralized models for identity verification are all prone to A. Problem Statement misuses, fake identities, and political conflicts. Identity is a The simplest formulation of our problems is: political concept, and nation-states will come against every Create a decentralized system for assigning exactly one public system that aims to collect their citizen identities. Moreover, key to every human, without violating users’ privacy. we need to make sure that such an authority does not create This definition may create some debates. First, we must fake identities, or excluding a specific group of people from define words like user, human, and decentralized as we see the system in favor of itself. in next section. We can see this system as maintaining and Blockchain brings us a decentralized way for recording managing a list of valid public keys without trusting any specific data in an immutable ledger -which the correctness centralized authority. By system, we mean a socio-economic of data is also guaranteed by computer code, based on pre- entity where some group of people, encouraged by economic specified rules. Decentralized money is a direct application of incentives, form a specific structure toward achieving a goal. B. Terminology money they need, in order to do X in the system?” X can be making one fake identity, making infinite fake identities, 1) Human: When we want to design an identity system for preventing someone from entering the system (censorship) and humans, we must tackle two questions: any other unwanted incident. We analyze our system from this 1. What makes an entity a human? point of view in section 6. 2. What makes this human persistent over time? How can we 3) Incentives: We can see this kind of system as a form of say one person is the same over time? the cooperative game, where people interact with each other The first question is crucial, to determine who can enter the for reaching a shared goal. For this reason, there must be system. Can we name a strong Artificial Intelligence a human? enough incentives for parties to participate. Formally speaking, It seems that all of us have some consensus on a definition of we should determine the amount of effort, energy and other a human. It’s a combination of some specific body properties resources every party has to put, and how many tokens he gets (e.g. shape, face, etc.) and intellectual abilities (e.g. memory, back. Analysing this market can give us the equilibrium and language, etc.). the prediction of what will happen at the end. In the case of The second question is harder, and a famous unsolved problem Bitcoin, e.g., there are always incentives for some group of in philosophy [9]. If we want to map the identity of a person people (miners) for running full nodes and miner equipment to any of his properties, we lose something. for example, if for earning new Bitcoins, so the system will be alive as long we define personal identity over time as a person’s body, it is as these coins are paid to them. known that all body cells are replaced after some time. But 4) Privacy: we just need some properties that are persistent over time for Privacy is the ability of an individual or group most people (without any fundamental philosophical reason). to have control over all the information about themselves We can name three of these properties: and to whom they express. Privacy and data protection are of the most important challenges in every blockchain-based • Biometrics: Some specific human body structures have system because it is known that decentralized systems are proven to be persistent and unique over time. Finger- inherently transparent, and all data can be accessed by any prints, DNA and iris scan are examples of proper bio- node. As shown in recent researches, many cryptocurrencies metrics. are at the risk of linking transactions and other data leaks. This • Memory: The average human brain can memorize some transparency and lack of privacy is a cost of high security data and recognize it over time. Persistence of memory and immutability of them. We need more consideration for is almost true for all people. preserving privacy in a permanent identity system which can • Trust: This is less clear than the previous properties. be used for critical purposes. Cryptographic advancements, Trust is how other people know and recognize one such as functional cryptography, program obfuscation, and person. Basically, it is a combination of some mind-body ring signatures can be used for enhancing privacy in UniqueID. properties. However here, judging over these properties We will discuss privacy concerns and imaginable solutions in is up to others. Trust is how other people see someone depth in next chapter. as persistent and unique over time. Human judgment can make some errors, but it works well in many situations. III. UNIQUEID DESIGN 2) Decentralized: Defining decentralization, especially in a In this section, we come up with a detailed explanation of rigorous form is very hard mostly because it takes different how UniqueID works and solves the decentralized proof-of- forms in different contexts [10]. We focus on decentralization unique-human problem. First, we provide an overall flow of in its political form here: there is no specific entity -state, the system, and then we cover the concepts and components corporation- or person who can affect the system, creating or which our system consists of. removing identities. One side of this decentralization is the inability of an entity in changing ledger information: account A.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Evaluating Inclusion, Equality, Security, and Privacy in Pseudonym Parties and Other Proofs of Personhood
    Identity and Personhood in Digital Democracy: Evaluating Inclusion, Equality, Security, and Privacy in Pseudonym Parties and Other Proofs of Personhood Bryan Ford Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL) November 5, 2020 Abstract of enforced physical security and privacy can address the coercion and vote-buying risks that plague today’s E- Digital identity seems at first like a prerequisite for digi- voting and postal voting systems alike. We also examine tal democracy: how can we ensure “one person, one vote” other recently-proposed approaches to proof of person- online without identifying voters? But the full gamut of hood, some of which offer conveniencessuch as all-online digital identity solutions – e.g., online ID checking, bio- participation. These alternatives currently fall short of sat- metrics, self-sovereign identity, and social/trust networks isfying all the key digital personhood goals, unfortunately, – all present severe flaws in security, privacy, and trans- but offer valuable insights into the challenges we face. parency, leaving users vulnerable to exclusion, identity loss or theft, and coercion. These flaws may be insur- mountable because digital identity is a cart pulling the Contents horse. We cannot achieve digital identity secure enough to support the weight of digital democracy, until we can 1 Introduction 2 build it on a solid foundation of digital personhood meet- ing key requirements. While identity is about distinguish- 2 Goals for Digital Personhood 4 ing one person from another through attributes or affilia- tions, personhood is about giving all real people inalien- 3 Pseudonym Parties 5 able digital participation rights independent of identity, 3.1 Thebasicidea.
    [Show full text]
  • Applicability and Appropriateness of Distributed Ledgers Consensus Protocols in Public and Private Sectors: a Systematic Review
    Received February 13, 2019, accepted February 27, 2019, date of publication March 21, 2019, date of current version April 13, 2019. Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2904181 Applicability and Appropriateness of Distributed Ledgers Consensus Protocols in Public and Private Sectors: A Systematic Review A. SHAHAAB 1, B. LIDGEY2, C. HEWAGE 1, AND I. KHAN1 1Cardiff School of Technologies, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff, CF5 2YB, U.K. 2Companies House, Cardiff, CF14 3UZ, U.K. Corresponding author: A. Shahaab ([email protected]) This work was supported by the Knowledge Economy Skills Scholarships through a major pan-Wales operation supported by the European Social Funds through the Welsh Government, and through Companies House, U.K., under Grant CMK219. ABSTRACT Advancement of consensus protocols in recent years has enabled distributed ledger technologies (DLTs) to find its application and value in sectors beyond cryptocurrencies. Here we reviewed 66 known consensus protocols and classified them into philosophical and architectural categories, also providing a visual representation. As a case study, we focus on the public sector and highlighted potential protocols. We have also listed these protocols against basic features and sector preference in a tabular format to facilitate selection. We argue that no protocol is a silver bullet, therefore should be selected carefully, considering the sector requirements and environment. INDEX TERMS Blockchain technology, consensus algorithms, distributed consensus protocols, distributed ledger technology, DLTs for public sector, distributed systems, Govtech, permissioned and permissionless blockchains. I. INTRODUCTION information across a distributed ledger. The objective of all Achieving consensus is a fundamental problem in distributed of these attempts is to achieve availability and consistency computing.
    [Show full text]
  • Sybil Attacks on Identity-Augmented Proof-Of-Stake
    King’s Research Portal DOI: 10.1016/j.comnet.2021.108424 Document Version Early version, also known as pre-print Link to publication record in King's Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Platt, M., & McBurney, P. (2021). Sybil Attacks on Identity-Augmented Proof-of-Stake. COMPUTER NETWORKS , 199, [108424]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2021.108424 Citing this paper Please note that where the full-text provided on King's Research Portal is the Author Accepted Manuscript or Post-Print version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognize and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. •Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the Research Portal for the purpose of private study or research. •You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain •You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the Research Portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
    [Show full text]
  • Coins, Clubs, and Crowds: Scaling and Decentralization in Next-Generation Blockchains
    Coins, Clubs, and Crowds: Scaling and Decentralization in Next-Generation Blockchains Prof. Bryan Ford Decentralized and Distributed Systems (DEDIS) School of Information and Communications (IC) [email protected] – dedis.epfl.ch Vienna BDLT Summer School – September 3, 2019 Where there’s data, there’s risk... Access, sharing compounds risk Weakest-Link Security “You can trust us!” Shared Access Partner A Business Partner B Partner C “All of us!” A Fundamental Challenge In today’s IT systems, security is an afterthought ● Designs embody “weakest-link” security Scaling to bigger systems → weaker security ● Greater chance of any “weak link” breaking Central Databases = Attractive Targets One of three credit rating agencies in the US ● Exposed sensitive personal information about 143 million people (44% of US population) The DEDIS lab at EPFL: Mission Design, build, and deploy secure privacy-preserving Decentralized and Distributed Systems (DEDIS) • Distributed: spread widely across the Internet & world • Decentralized: independent participants, no central authority, no single points of failure or compromise Overarching theme: building decentralized systems that distribute trust widely with strongest-link security Strongest-Link Security Weakest-Link Security Turning Around the Security Game Design IT systems so that making them bigger makes their security increase instead of decrease Weakest-link Strongest-link Scalable security security Strongest-link security DEDIS Laboratory Members Bryan Ford Philipp Jovanovic Associate Professor Postdoctoral Scholar Lefteris Kokoris-Kogias Kirill Nikitin Cristina Basescu Enis Ceyhun Alp Ph.D. Student Ph.D. Student Ph.D. Student Ph.D. Student Jeff R. Allen Kelong Cong Gaylor Bosson Noémien Kocher Software Engineer Software Engineer Software Engineer Software Engineer Today’s Hot Decentralized Technology (credit: Tony Arcieri) Bitcoin (2008) First successful decentralized cryptocurrency… How to track wealth (or anything)? Things Ledgers ● Gold, beads, cash..
    [Show full text]
  • Sok: Layer-Two Blockchain Protocols
    SoK: Layer-Two Blockchain Protocols Lewis Gudgeon1, Pedro Moreno-Sanchez2, Stefanie Roos3, Patrick McCorry4, and Arthur Gervais1;5;6 1 Imperial College London, United Kingdom 2 TU Wien, Austria 3 TU Delft, Netherlands 4 PISA Research, United Kingdom 5 Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Switzerland 6 Liquidity Network, Switzerland Abstract. Blockchains have the potential to revolutionize markets and services. However, they currently exhibit high latencies and fail to handle transaction loads comparable to those managed by traditional financial systems. Layer-two protocols, built on top of (layer-one) blockchains, avoid disseminating every transaction to the whole network by exchang- ing authenticated transactions off-chain. Instead, they utilize the expen- sive and low-rate blockchain only as a recourse for disputes. The promise of layer-two protocols is to complete off-chain transactions in sub-seconds rather than minutes or hours while retaining asset security, reducing fees and allowing blockchains to scale. We systematize the evolution of layer-two protocols over the period from the inception of cryptocurrencies in 2009 until today, structuring the multifaceted body of research on layer-two transactions. Categorizing the research into payment and state channels, commit-chains and pro- tocols for refereed delegation, we provide a comparison of the protocols and their properties. We provide a systematization of the associated syn- chronization and routing protocols along with their privacy and security aspects. This Systematization of Knowledge (SoK) clears the layer-two fog, highlights the potential of layer-two solutions and identifies their unsolved challenges, indicating propitious avenues of future work. Keywords: Applied Cryptography, Blockchain Applications, Layer-Two Blockchain Protocols, Blockchain Scaling, Cryptocurrency Adoption 1 Introduction Blockchains offer a mechanism through which mutually mistrusting entities can cooperate in the absence of a trusted third party.
    [Show full text]
  • UNICORE D2.3 Platform Requirements
    H2020-ICT-2018-2-825377 UNICORE UNICORE: A Common Code Base and Toolkit for Deployment of Applications to Secure and Reliable Virtual Execution Environments Horizon 2020 - Research and Innovation Framework Programme D2.3 Platform Requirements - Final Due date of deliverable: 30 September 2019 Actual submission date: 30 September 2019 Start date of project 1 January 2019 Duration 36 months Lead contractor for this deliverable Accelleran NV Version 1.0 Confidentiality status “Public” c UNICORE Consortium 2020 Page 1 of (62) Abstract This is the final version of the UNICORE “Platform Requirements - Final” (D2.3) document. The original version (D2.1 Requirements) was published in April 2019. The differences between the two versions of this document are detailed in the Executive Summary. The goal of the EU-funded UNICORE project is to develop a common code-base and toolchain that will enable software developers to rapidly create secure, portable, scalable, high-performance solutions starting from existing applications. The key to this is to compile an application into very light-weight virtual machines - known as unikernels - where there is no traditional operating system, only the specific bits of operating system functionality that the application needs. The resulting unikernels can then be deployed and run on standard high-volume servers or cloud computing infrastructure. The technology developed by the project will be evaluated in a number of trials, spanning several applica- tion domains. This document describes the current state of the art in those application domains from the perspective of the project partners whose businesses encompass those domains. It then goes on to describe the specific target scenarios that will be used to evaluate the technology within each application domain, and how the success of each trial will be judged.
    [Show full text]
  • A Theoretical Treatment of Blockchain Scaling Protocols
    Research Collection Doctoral Thesis A Theoretical Treatment of Blockchain Scaling Protocols Author(s): Avarikioti, Georgia Publication Date: 2021 Permanent Link: https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000473637 Rights / License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International This page was generated automatically upon download from the ETH Zurich Research Collection. For more information please consult the Terms of use. ETH Library Diss. ETH No. 27442 A Theoretical Treatment of Blockchain Scaling Protocols A dissertation submitted to attain the degree of Doctor of Sciences of ETH Zurich (Dr. sc. ETH Zurich) presented by Georgia Avarikioti M.Sc., National and Kapidostrian University of Athens born on 14 July 1988 citizen of Greece accepted on the recommendation of Prof. Dr. R. Wattenhofer, examiner Prof. Dr. M. Maffei, Prof. Dr. A. Miller, co-examiners 2021 First Edition 2021 Copyright © 2021 by Georgia Avarikioti Series in Distributed Computing, Volume 35 TIK-Schriftenreihe-Nr. 187 iii In loving memory of my dearest friend Marisa, keeping the promise we once made to change this unjust world. iv v Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth. - Henry David Thoreau vi Acknowledgements First and foremost, I want to thank my PhD advisor, Prof. Roger Wattenhofer, for this beautiful journey. Roger was more than an advisor, a mentor and a friend, through these years. Our meetings were always a time of joy and clarity, be it in scientific matters, or simply discussions about society and life. Apart from the academic guidance, Roger instilled in me confidence and trust in myself, which I was severely lacking coming from a different background (especially when he was losing in Tichu!).
    [Show full text]
  • King's Research Portal
    King’s Research Portal DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-79318-0_9 Document Version Early version, also known as pre-print Link to publication record in King's Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Platt, M., & McBurney, P. (2021). Self-Governing Public Decentralised Systems: Work in Progress. In T. Groß, & L. Viganò (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Socio-Technical Aspects in Security (pp. 154-167). (Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Vol. 12812). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79318- 0_9 Citing this paper Please note that where the full-text provided on King's Research Portal is the Author Accepted Manuscript or Post-Print version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognize and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. •Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the Research Portal for the purpose of private study or research. •You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain •You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the Research Portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
    [Show full text]
  • The Known Traveller Digital Identity Concept 21 4
    System Initiative on Shaping the Future of Mobility The Known Traveller Unlocking the potential of digital identity for secure and seamless travel In collaboration with Accenture January 2018 Contents 3 Preface 4 Foreword 5 Executive summary 7 1. Increasing pressures on security in travel 12 2. Methodology 14 3. The Known Traveller Digital Identity concept 21 4. Paradigm shift to a digital identity 23 5. Principles and core technologies 31 6. Building a prototype 36 7. Next steps: Test and scale 38 Recommendations 40 Acknowledgements 41 Appendix A 42 Endnotes World Economic Forum® © 2018 – All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or Transmitted in any form or by any means, including Photocopying and recording, or by any information Storage and retrieval system. REF 090118 - case 00036151 Preface In today’s fractured world, governments, travel and tourism industry leaders and the public are increasingly concerned by security threats. Rather than promoting isolationism and responding reactively to security shocks, stakeholders must collaborate to protect public safety while facilitating the movement of legitimate travellers. Although governments use private companies to help optimize travel security processes, they must deepen their engagement and increase collaborative relationships with diverse stakeholders to maximize transformation of the travel security system. In turn, international organizations that influence travel regulations, as well as airlines, hotels, financial services and technology Cheryl Martin providers selling services to travellers, must go beyond the typical industry Managing Director, alliances and work with governments and each other. Head of Industries and Member of the Emerging technologies – from biometrics to distributed ledger to machine Managing Board, learning – offer tremendous potential to transform and enhance the global travel World Economic Forum security system.
    [Show full text]
  • A Truth-Inducing Sybil Resistant Decentralized Blockchain Oracle
    1 A Truth-Inducing Sybil Resistant Decentralized Blockchain Oracle Yuxi Cai∗, Georgios Fragkosz, Eirini Eleni Tsiropoulouz, Andreas Veneris∗y ∗Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto yDept. of Computer Science, University of Toronto zDept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA Abstract—Many blockchain applications use decentralized ora- herd behavior [8]. Further, it is not immune to Sybil attacks, cles to trustlessly retrieve external information as those platforms that is, when a voter creates pseudonymous identities to obtain are agnostic to real-world information. Some existing decentral- disproportionately large influence on the system. Such attacks ized oracle protocols make use of majority-voting schemes to determine the outcomes and/or rewards to participants. In these could be discouraged if one increments the cost of creating a cases, the awards (or penalties) grow linearly to the participant new identity [9]. Although staked voting associates a potential stakes, therefore voters are indifferent between voting though cost linear to the number of replicated identity and the paired- a single or multiple identities. Furthermore, the voters receive question protocol further increases the cost by awarding the a reward only when they agree with the majority outcome, attacker when the antithetic questions have different majority a tactic that may lead to herd behavior. This paper proposes an oracle protocol based on peer prediction mechanisms with outcomes, a rational voter is still indifferent between reporting non-linear staking rules. In the proposed approach, instead of with a single or multiple identities in the ASTRAEA protocols. being rewarded when agreeing with a majority outcome, a voter This paper presents a peer prediction-based protocol with receives awards when their report achieves a relatively high score non-linear scaling of stake for decentralized oracles.
    [Show full text]
  • Practical Attacks Against the I2P Network
    Practical Attacks Against The I2P Network Christoph Egger1, Johannes Schlumberger2, Christopher Kruegel2, and Giovanni Vigna2 1 Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg [email protected] 2 University of California, Santa Barbara {js,chris,vigna}@cs.ucsb.edu Abstract. Anonymity networks, such as Tor or I2P, were built to allow users to access network resources without revealing their identity. Newer designs, like I2P, run in a completely decentralized fashion, while older systems, like Tor, are built around central authorities. The decentralized approach has advantages (no trusted central party, better scalability), but there are also security risks associated with the use of distributed hash tables (DHTs) in this environment. I2P was built with these security problems in mind, and the network is considered to provide anonymity for all practical purposes. Unfortu- nately, this is not entirely justified. In this paper, we present a group of attacks that can be used to deanonymize I2P users. Specifically, we show that an attacker, with relatively limited resources, is able to deanonymize a I2P user that accesses a resource of interest with high probability. 1 Introduction In modern societies, freedom of speech is considered an essential right. One should be able to express his/her opinion without fear of repressions from the government or other members of society. To protect against retribution, the laws of democratic countries recognize the importance of being able to publish information without disclosing one’s identity in the process. Unfortunately, this essential right to anonymity is not available on today’s Internet. Local observers, such as Internet providers, site administrators, or users on the same wireless network, can typically track a person while she is using the Internet and build a record of her actions.
    [Show full text]
  • Very Short Primer on Blockchain Technology for Database
    Tutorial Very Short Primer on Blockchain Technology for Database Researchers Zsolt István IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark [email protected] ABSTRACT Blockchain is an emerging technology, considered increasingly often beyond the cryptocurrency world for business-to-business use-cases. In contrast to public blockchains such as Bitcoin, that are open systems in which anyone can participate, in business- to-business scenarios the membership of the service is controlled (permissioned blockchain). This permits the use of Byzantine Figure 1: At the core of all blockchains is a verifiable data fault tolerant (BFT) consensus protocols at the core of the service structure, typically in the form of an append-only log. to establish a total order of transactions, instead of the more ex- Cryptographic hashes (fingerprints) included in blocks re- pensive Proof-of-Work-based consensus protocols. Permissioned cursively tie them to the previous blocks. blockchains typically set out to solve problems in the space where databases have traditionally resided, with the main difference being that the former decentralizes trust. There are numerous re- into two categories based on who is allowed to participate in the search proposals in the intersection of databases and blockchains. consensus algorithm and, as a result, add data to the data struc- Sadly, there are still many misconceptions about this technology ture: First, permissionless blockchains where anyone is allowed which leads to confusion in the community. The main goal of this to participate and, second, permissioned blockchains where only primer is to give an overview of the relevant topics and provide selected entities can participate (this also assumes that the nodes pointers for further reading.
    [Show full text]