[Cryptography] Drop Zone: P2P E-commerce paper

[ianG]

On 27/03/2015 21:43 pm, 17Q4MX2hmktmpuUKHFuoRmS5MfB5XPbhod at mail2tor.com 
wrote:
>>
>> What does this mean -- does "testnet" have the capability for a "secure
>> communication channel" ?  I'm unfamiliar with that, that would be a
>> significant variation on testing the mainnet...
>>
>>
>>
>> So, my attack would be to (a) set up a seller of contraband stuff, which
>> I simply steal from the evidence locker, (b) do all that stuff you
>> mention above, and (c) surround the dead letter boxes with lots of
>> cameras and other sensors.
>>
>> (d) Sell, profit, then after a year go roll up all my entrapped &
>> identified victims.  Oh, and refill the evidence locker.
>>
>> (e) Rinse & repeat.
>>
>>
>> As far as I can see, the attack doesn't even damage my reputation score?!
>
> As proposed, the use of testnet is a significant deviation from its
> current uses as a staging network for value transfers on mainnet.
> Nonetheless, communication channels can be established over testnet in the
> same way they can be established over mainnet: by embedding messages
> inside transactions (Typically via OP_CHECKMULTI, though OP_RETURN is
> prefferable).  The reason for using testnet over mainnet is the reduced
> cost.  Persistence isn't needed for this function, so mainnet does not
> offer any advantage over testnet.  Such an example of this usage is cited
> in the paper and available here: http://www.royalforkblog.com/btc-pgp/

ok.

Digressing... As a general observation in financial cryptography, 
general purpose trading networks seem to require three elements:

     messaging,
     file store, and
     payments,

each of which have to be secured.  Looking at the evolution of 
variations such as Ethereum, they have added those other two to the 
"standard" blockchain approach pioneered by Bitcoin.  Whereas in the 
latter Bitcoin there is a sense of using some other disjoint feature.

What strikes me is that, for those with long memories, Mojo Nation might 
have actually had the feature set more or less right.


> Regarding the proposed attack, much of it is addressed in the paper
> proper.  Contraband enforcement typically focuses on supply chains.
> Buyers have always been at risk of being caught by bad acting sellers.
> This protocol does not lessen that risk to buyers, but it certainly does
> not increase it.  In your proposed attack vector, third party enforcers
> are still selling the products to buyers for long periods of time.  Drop
> Zone is specifically designed to invert the enforcement structure so that
> supply chain disruption is no longer a problem.


OK, you're securing the supplier not the buyer.  I get it.

(With a nod to other posters, you might want to try out your concept 
with wine & fags before putting your futures at risk with the exciting 
stuff.)



iang