Difference between revisions of "Application Scenario"
From IridiaWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
* 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 |
* 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 |
+ | * The swarm should come to consensus; no robot should be able to do something without getting automatically punished or rewarded; robots should have a guarantee that a certain action leads to certain consequences |
* 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) |
* 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 authentification, any robot can join) |
* The swarm should be able to add new members at any time (there is no need of authentification, any robot can join) |
||
Revision as of 23:13, 20 November 2016
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 should have a guarantee that a certain action leads to certain consequences
- 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 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 to which organization or person a robot belongs)
- These settings can be used in: exploration, mapping, oil spill removal, humanitarian demining
- Physical Proof of Work
FAQ
- Q: Robots are computationally limited devices. Therefore, they can only perform proof-of-work with limited difficulty. What happens if a much more powerful attacker performs a 51% attack?
- 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 provide a proof-of-concept
- 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
