Continuing the discussion from Does Safenetwork fail against massive NSA snooping?:
Such a group would need an exploitable weakness in Safenetwork. I may have identified another such weakness.
Imagine a group with significant resources, like a botnet, a group striving to cripple Safenetwork.
Such a group might try this:
Create a group of vaults on their botnet to generate Safecoin
Use all this Safecoin to create more identities and vaults
Once they have enough identities,they restart all their vaults with hardly any storage capacity or cache. They create as much extra minivaults as possible.
They start them all generating and requesting as much Structured Data as possible.
As creating Structured Data does not cost any Safecoin, such an adversary can continue to fill up all available vault storage and waste all Safenetwork bandwidth with impunity.
The weakness I found here is, that farmers provide at least three resources, but the Safecoin economy is based on only one resource.
I admire how David has designed Safecoin, I am just saying we need at least three coins:
Safegold to pay for Immutable Data
Safesilver to pay for Structured Data
Safecopper to pay for Bandwidth
I am rather sure we should not try to extend Safecoin use to cover all possible resources. The elegance and simplicity of the current Safecoin design can only suffer. Instead we should apply the current design independently to at least these three resources and create a “Farmers Market” as soon as possible, where any Safecoin type can be traded for any other. Supply and demand will then do the necessary balancing that would be too complicated to leave to any algorithm.
David has already described why Safecoin for immutable data is a necessity for Safenet.
The scenario above makes clear why structured data needs its own price/coin.
Bandwidth gets its own Safecoin type because I expect that it will be easy to construct a similar scenario, just using random hashkeys, to waste bandwidth. I also included bandwidth because I can see an additional advantage if some content can be requested with priority. Wouldn’t it be nice to have the first five minutes of a film asap by paying a few coppers extra?
I thought a while if “cache” should be valued as an independent resource also, but could not decide. AFAICS use and cost are reasonably balanced for intermediate vaults, with Safenetwork as a whole winning and responsible vaults losing in a zero-sum game. Caches seem to have two mayor functions: saving bandwidth by offering extra vault space and first line of defense against attacks like described above. For now I guess that makes a nickel coin superfluous.
For the future two resources I hope to see developed, will also need their own coin:
Safeplatinum to pay for calculations
Safeiridium to pay for mesh connections, even if we integrate mesh connections in Safenet, they are sufficiently different that they need their own coin. They will form a layer below the Kademlia layer that powers the normal Safenet.
I would love to see reactions