View Issue Details

IDProjectCategoryView StatusLast Update
0001369GNUnetfile-sharing servicepublic2012-11-05 17:34
Reporteramatus Assigned ToChristian Grothoff Due Date
PrioritylowSeverityfeatureReproducibilityN/A
Status closedResolutionfixed 
Product VersionGit master 
Target Version0.9.4Fixed in Version0.9.4 
Summary0001369: Add trust_spent to CS_fs_reply_content_MESSAGE
DescriptionA client might want to know how much trust was spent in receiving the reply to a query. Either to display to the user, or maybe to attach some priority to the content if it were to automatically reinsert it.
TagsNo tags attached.

Activities

Christian Grothoff

2008-06-22 08:06

manager   ~0003526

We won't do this, and here is why:

1) the peer could lie about it
2) we could never know if he lied
3) if we acted on it, the peer could manipulate our behavior
4) if peers gave honest replies, their honest answers could be abused (see economy paper: if I know that you don't charge me, I could (ab)use your idle resources knowing that I would not get charged/penalized)
5) if peers gave honest replies, adversaries could deduce details about their load (which would -- to a small extent, but nevertheless -- reduce the anonymity of their local user(s)).

So in conclusion, this feature would rely on honest peers hurting themselves, which violates one of the core principles of the design: peers act primarily to help themselves and all data that we act upon is somehow (cryptographically) validated to be accurate.

amatus

2008-06-22 12:02

developer   ~0003532

The peer must have some idea of how much effort it put into filling a request, weather that be how much trust it thinks it spent, or how many retries it sent, or how many seconds it took to get the response. That information is just thrown away when it could be recorded and sent to the client. Maybe giving the user an idea of how hard it was to get their search results or file downloads, or I was thinking of using such a metric for gnunet-fuse because I want to automatically re-publish every block it downloads with some kind of meaningful priority.

Christian Grothoff

2008-06-25 23:38

manager   ~0003557

Oh, I misread something: you're talking about the CS-reply message, not the P2P reply message. Big difference. Obviously on the CS-side we don't have to worry about trust/anonymity and other things (I somehow missed the "CS" part and just read "content reply".

Certainly we could add some information to the CS-reply, the question is what data is actually worthwile. Trust *offered* (not spent, that's what got me on the P2P-path), is one metric. Number of queries transmitted maybe another good metric to have (we could spend almost no trust but transmit it 500 times...).

Christian Grothoff

2012-06-23 08:36

manager   ~0006137

Implemented in SVN 22219.

Issue History

Date ModifiedUsernameFieldChange
2008-06-19 06:36amatusNew Issue
2008-06-22 08:06Christian GrothoffNote Added: 0003526
2008-06-22 08:06Christian GrothoffStatusnew => closed
2008-06-22 08:06Christian GrothoffResolutionopen => won't fix
2008-06-22 12:02amatusStatusclosed => feedback
2008-06-22 12:02amatusResolutionwon't fix => reopened
2008-06-22 12:02amatusNote Added: 0003532
2008-06-25 23:38Christian GrothoffNote Added: 0003557
2010-05-27 09:40Christian GrothoffProject@3@ => GNUnet
2010-05-27 09:54Christian GrothoffPrioritynormal => low
2010-05-27 09:54Christian GrothoffProduct Versioncurrent SVN =>
2011-11-04 10:10Christian GrothoffStatusfeedback => confirmed
2011-11-04 10:10Christian GrothoffCategoryGAP => file-sharing service
2012-02-21 20:54Christian GrothoffProduct Version => Git master
2012-02-21 20:54Christian GrothoffTarget Version => 0.9.4
2012-05-02 23:17Christian GrothoffAssigned To => Christian Grothoff
2012-05-02 23:17Christian GrothoffStatusconfirmed => assigned
2012-06-23 08:36Christian GrothoffNote Added: 0006137
2012-06-23 08:36Christian GrothoffStatusassigned => resolved
2012-06-23 08:36Christian GrothoffFixed in Version => 0.9.4
2012-06-23 08:36Christian GrothoffResolutionreopened => fixed
2012-11-05 17:34Christian GrothoffStatusresolved => closed