Re: [Blockchain-interop] Interesting paper when truthful behaviour may not be guaranteed

Thomas Hardjono <hardjono@mit.edu> Tue, 16 February 2021 21:08 UTC

Return-Path: <hardjono@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: blockchain-interop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: blockchain-interop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 364FA3A10F6 for <blockchain-interop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 13:08:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z4G5z-U9gEIs for <blockchain-interop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 13:08:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outgoing-exchange-5.mit.edu (outgoing-exchange-5.mit.edu [18.9.28.59]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03BC43A110A for <blockchain-interop@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 13:07:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oc11exedge1.exchange.mit.edu (OC11EXEDGE1.EXCHANGE.MIT.EDU [18.9.3.17]) by outgoing-exchange-5.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 11GL7dvk021589; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:07:50 -0500
Received: from oc11expo23.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.4.88) by oc11exedge1.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.3.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1293.2; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:07:27 -0500
Received: from oc11expo23.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.4.88) by oc11expo23.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.4.88) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1365.1; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:07:37 -0500
Received: from oc11expo23.exchange.mit.edu ([18.9.4.88]) by oc11expo23.exchange.mit.edu ([18.9.4.88]) with mapi id 15.00.1365.000; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:07:37 -0500
From: Thomas Hardjono <hardjono@mit.edu>
To: Luke Riley <luke.riley@quant.network>, "blockchain-interop@ietf.org" <blockchain-interop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Interesting paper when truthful behaviour may not be guaranteed
Thread-Index: AQHXBKW7dvt+eC6Vd0evVaSfd515yapbRSU1
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 21:07:37 +0000
Message-ID: <5a78a5e81c2f432e8a8927d53f98b2ce@oc11expo23.exchange.mit.edu>
References: <CWLP123MB2980039E736017BF2D1047B187879@CWLP123MB2980.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <CWLP123MB2980039E736017BF2D1047B187879@CWLP123MB2980.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [73.167.220.69]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/blockchain-interop/BbTrEavVhW0KjA672vNqqIQyoHU>
Subject: Re: [Blockchain-interop] Interesting paper when truthful behaviour may not be guaranteed
X-BeenThere: blockchain-interop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Blockchain Gateway Interoperability Protocol <blockchain-interop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/blockchain-interop>, <mailto:blockchain-interop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/blockchain-interop/>
List-Post: <mailto:blockchain-interop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:blockchain-interop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/blockchain-interop>, <mailto:blockchain-interop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 21:08:04 -0000

Thanks Luke,

>>> Placing two gateways (with access to the same ledger but run by different parties) 
>>> into a game against each other to guarantee (if economically rational) 
>>> that the data returned is correct.

I like this idea very much -- perhaps adding gateway reputation (as Gilbert suggested) as the value point.  So the more a gateway is found to be unreliable (crashes too many times, tries to cheat, etc), it lowers the reputation score of the gateway.

Then the gateway election protocol could factor-in this reputation score.

-- thomas --




________________________________________
From: Blockchain-interop [blockchain-interop-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Luke Riley [luke.riley@quant.network]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 3:53 PM
To: blockchain-interop@ietf.org
Subject: [Blockchain-interop] Interesting paper when truthful behaviour may not be guaranteed

Hi all,

This is the paper I mentioned in the meeting: https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/489

Placing two gateways (with access to the same ledger but run by different parties) into a game against each other to guarantee (if economically rational) that the data returned is correct.

Regards,

Luke
This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain privileged and confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Quant Network does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus free.