Difference between revisions of "Application Scenario"

From IridiaWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 69: Line 69:
   
 
* Q: How will you prevent physical attacks on the swarm (destroy robots, catch & release robots)?
 
* Q: How will you prevent physical attacks on the swarm (destroy robots, catch & release robots)?
** Using inspiration from game theory, one could render beneficial behaviour more profitable than malicious behavior. Since the blockchain is tamper-proof, one can easily transfer "real money" to it (e.g., from another blockchain).
+
** Using inspiration from game theory, one could render beneficial behaviour more profitable than malicious behavior. Since the blockchain is tamper-proof, one can easily transfer "real money" to it (e.g., from another blockchain). B using certification methods, one could check if the robot has been "reprogammed" during captivity.
  +
  +
  +
* Q: Does your thesis also contribute if one does not want to start a new blockchain?
  +
** Yes. I will develop protocols for light (thin) clients that work on limited devices.
  +
** I will develop methods for sparse communication.
  +
** ...
  +
  +
  +
* Q: Is this really swarm robotics or rather a multi-robot system?

Revision as of 01:46, 21 November 2016

Goal

  • Byzantine resilient
  • Secure coordination: Swarm behaves exactly as specified
  • Reaches consensus
  • Without affecting the task execution time too much

Impacts

  • Increases scalability: New members can be included at any time; their controllers can be obtained from the blockchain
  • Increases autonomy: Robots behave exactly as specified without supervision
  • Increases security: Attacker have little chance/incentive to maliciously influence the swarm behavior
  • Increases transparency: All critical events are recorded in the blockchain

General properties for a application scenario

  • Robots work remotely, without real-time supervision (e.g., deep sea, planetary exploration, or underground); they can only communicate in a peer-to-peer manner; there is no central trusted source of information
  • The swarm should come to consensus; no robot should be able to do something without getting automatically punished or rewarded; robots (and, therefore, their owner) should have a guarantee that a certain action leads to certain consequences
  • The swarm behavior should behave "exactly as specified" -> secure coordination (important for all sensitive tasks)
  • Robots should be fully autonomous (no single point of failure, no one can just press a button and stop them, no person decides if a member is included in the swarm or not)
  • The swarm should be able to add new members at any time (there is no need of password authentification, any robot can join)
  • Robots possibly belong to different organizations (e.g., robot project collaboration between different countries, no country wants to face the risk that another country just stops the project)
  • The swarm members are untrusted (you don't have to know which organization or person a robot belongs to; you don't have to know if a robot sends right or wrong information)
  • Each robot is a (light) node in the network; they could verify and distribute transactions
  • The blockchain does not need to be the only communication medium, instead it could be used for critical information only and complemented with "normal" local communication
  • After a mission was performed, it might be imporant to see, which robot performed what action; thanks to the immutability of the blockchain, this can be done long time after the actual actions were performed
  • These settings can be used in: exploration, mapping, oil spill removal, humanitarian demining

FAQ

  • Q: Robots are computationally limited devices. Therefore, they can only perform proof-of-work (PoW) with limited difficulty. What happens if a much more powerful attacker performs a 51% attack?
    • Bitcoin's classical PoW might not be the right choice. Instead, proof-of-stake (PoS) might be a better alternative. The stake might be built by using "Physical PoW", for example by removing oil spills or mines.


  • Q: How do light clients work with Ethereum/with your framework?
    • The development of suitable light clients could be a part of the research. Light clients for PoS still have to be developed.


  • Q: Why do you use physical robot and not just simulation?
    • Simulations can never capture all aspects of the real-world
    • The goal is to pave the way for real-world robot task; physical robots provide a proof-of-concept
    • Allows to study "Physical proof of work"
    • It allows to directly study and the capability of the blockchain technology to handle failing sensors, actuators, and other unforeseen events


  • Q: Why don't you just use a classicial consensus algorithm?
    • Other existing consensus algorithms (apart from blockchain technology) are susceptible to Sybil attacks or only provide consensus to a small degree


  • Q: Why don't you use a authentification system to only include trusted members?
    • A classical authentification system can be easily compromised (e.g., once the password is revealed, the entire system breaks down)
    • The swarm is more flexible without a authentification system: everyone can join at any time


  • Q: Why do you want to start your own blockchain instead of using the main Ethereum blockchain?
    • Since the robots work at remote areas, they may be without Internet connection for a long time.
    • Currently, there are no available light (thin) clients for Ethereum and the main blockchain is too memory-intense for small robots.


  • Q: Why would new members join the swarm?
    • New members could join the swarm to replace broken members, to reduce the time for solving the problem, or to be able to solve the problem at all.


  • Q: Ethereum and blockchain technology is already out there. What are your contributions?
    • Study possibilities and limitations of combining blockchain technology and robot swarms
    • Bring blockchain technology to smaller devices; study possibilities for light clients without proof of work
    • Provide proof-of-concept for robot swarms


  • Q: How will you prevent physical attacks on the swarm (destroy robots, catch & release robots)?
    • Using inspiration from game theory, one could render beneficial behaviour more profitable than malicious behavior. Since the blockchain is tamper-proof, one can easily transfer "real money" to it (e.g., from another blockchain). B using certification methods, one could check if the robot has been "reprogammed" during captivity.


  • Q: Does your thesis also contribute if one does not want to start a new blockchain?
    • Yes. I will develop protocols for light (thin) clients that work on limited devices.
    • I will develop methods for sparse communication.
    • ...


  • Q: Is this really swarm robotics or rather a multi-robot system?