Difference between revisions of "Application Scenario"
From IridiaWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search (→FAQ) |
(→FAQ) |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
* 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? |
* 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 |
** Bitcoin's classical PoW might not be the right choice. Instead, proof-of-stake (PoS) might be a better alternative. The stake |
||
+ | |||
* Q: Why do you want to start your own blockchain instead of using the main Ethereum blockchain? |
* 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. |
** 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. |
** Currently, there are no available light (thin) clients for Ethereum and the main blockchain is too memory-intense for small robots. |
||
+ | |||
* Q: Why do you use physical robot and not just simulation? |
* Q: Why do you use physical robot and not just simulation? |
||
Line 25: | Line 27: | ||
** The goal is to pave the way for real-world robot task; physical robots provide a proof-of-concept |
** The goal is to pave the way for real-world robot task; physical robots provide a proof-of-concept |
||
** It allows to directly study and the capability of the blockchain technology to handle such events |
** It allows to directly study and the capability of the blockchain technology to handle such events |
||
+ | |||
* Q: Why don't you just use a classicial consensus algorithm? |
* 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 |
** 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? |
* Q: Why don't you use a authentification system to only include trusted members? |
Revision as of 23:37, 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
- Each robot is a (light) node in the network; they could verify and distribute transactions
- 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
- Physical Proof of Work
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
- 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 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
- It allows to directly study and the capability of the blockchain technology to handle such 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