mirror of
https://github.com/corda/corda.git
synced 2024-12-18 20:47:57 +00:00
TWP: Move notary "guaranteed data distribution" into the future work section.
This commit is contained in:
parent
1e686ca7f3
commit
8f62c24400
@ -1296,47 +1296,6 @@ propagate far and the only entities who will learn their transaction hashes are
|
|||||||
select to keep the data from the notary. For liquid assets a validating notary should always be used to prevent
|
select to keep the data from the notary. For liquid assets a validating notary should always be used to prevent
|
||||||
value destruction and theft if the transaction identifiers leak.
|
value destruction and theft if the transaction identifiers leak.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\subsection{Guaranteed data distribution}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
In any global consensus system the user is faced with the question of whether they have the latest state of the
|
|
||||||
database. Programmers working with block chains often make the simplifying assumption that because there is no
|
|
||||||
formal map of miner locations and thus transactions are distributed to miners via broadcast, that they can listen
|
|
||||||
to the stream of broadcasts and learn if they have the latest data. Alas, nothing stops someone privately providing
|
|
||||||
a miner who has a known location with a transaction that they agree not to broadcast. The first time the rest of
|
|
||||||
the network finds out about this transaction is when a block containing it is broadcast. When used to do double
|
|
||||||
spending fraud this type of attack is known as a Finney Attack\cite{FinneyAttack}. Proof-of-work based systems rely
|
|
||||||
on aligned incentives to discourage such attacks: to quote the Bitcoin white paper, \emph{``He ought to find it
|
|
||||||
more profitable to play by the rules ... than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth.''} In
|
|
||||||
practice this approach appears to work well enough most of the time, given that miners typically do not accept
|
|
||||||
privately submitted transactions.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
In a system without global broadcast things are very different: the notary clusters \emph{must} accept transactions
|
|
||||||
directly and there is no mechanism to ensure that everyone sees that the transaction is occurring. Sometimes this
|
|
||||||
doesn't matter: most transactions are irrelevant for you and having to download them just wastes resources. But
|
|
||||||
occasionally you do wish to become aware that the ledger state has been changed by someone else. A simple example
|
|
||||||
is an option contract in which you wish to expire the option unless the counterparty has already exercised it. Them
|
|
||||||
exercising the option must not require the seller to sign off on it, as it may be advantageous for the seller to
|
|
||||||
refuse if it would cause them to lose money. Whilst the seller would discover if the buyer had exercised the option
|
|
||||||
when they attempted to expire it, due to the notary informing them that their expiry transaction was a double
|
|
||||||
spend, it is preferable to find out immediately.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The obvious way to implement this is to give notaries the responsibility for ensuring all interested parties find
|
|
||||||
out about a transaction. However, this would require the notaries to know who the involved parties actually are,
|
|
||||||
which would create an undesirable privacy leak. It would also place extra network load on the notaries who would
|
|
||||||
frequently be sending transaction data to parties that may already have it, or may simply not care. In many cases
|
|
||||||
there may be no requirement for the notary to act as a trusted third party for data distribution purposes, as
|
|
||||||
game-theoretic assumptions or legal assurances are sufficiently strong that peers can be trusted to deliver
|
|
||||||
transaction data as part of their regular flows.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
To solve this, app developers can choose whether to request transaction distribution by the notary or not. This
|
|
||||||
works by simply piggybacking on the standard identity lookup flows (see~\cref{sec:identity}). If a node
|
|
||||||
wishes to be informed by the notary when a state is consumed, it can send the certificates linking the random keys
|
|
||||||
in the state to the notary cluster, which then stores it in the local databases as per usual. Once the notary
|
|
||||||
cluster has committed the transaction, key identities are looked up and any which resolve successfully are sent
|
|
||||||
copies of the transaction. In normal operation the notary is not provided with the certificates linking the random
|
|
||||||
keys to the long term identity keys and thus does not know who is involved with the operation (assuming source IP
|
|
||||||
address obfuscation would be implemented, see~\cref{subsec:privacy-upgrades}).
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\section{The node}\label{sec:node}
|
\section{The node}\label{sec:node}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Corda comes with an open source reference implementation of the node. A more advanced `Corda Enterprise' node is
|
Corda comes with an open source reference implementation of the node. A more advanced `Corda Enterprise' node is
|
||||||
@ -1908,6 +1867,47 @@ such a requirement.
|
|||||||
%notary itself would simply use a private database and run on a single machine, with the logs exported to the people
|
%notary itself would simply use a private database and run on a single machine, with the logs exported to the people
|
||||||
%running a global network for asynchronous post-hoc verification.
|
%running a global network for asynchronous post-hoc verification.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\subsection{Guaranteed data distribution}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
In any global consensus system the user is faced with the question of whether they have the latest state of the
|
||||||
|
database. Programmers working with block chains often make the simplifying assumption that because there is no
|
||||||
|
formal map of miner locations and thus transactions are distributed to miners via broadcast, that they can listen
|
||||||
|
to the stream of broadcasts and learn if they have the latest data. Alas, nothing stops someone privately providing
|
||||||
|
a miner who has a known location with a transaction that they agree not to broadcast. The first time the rest of
|
||||||
|
the network finds out about this transaction is when a block containing it is broadcast. When used to do double
|
||||||
|
spending fraud this type of attack is known as a Finney Attack\cite{FinneyAttack}. Proof-of-work based systems rely
|
||||||
|
on aligned incentives to discourage such attacks: to quote the Bitcoin white paper, \emph{``He ought to find it
|
||||||
|
more profitable to play by the rules ... than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth.''} In
|
||||||
|
practice this approach appears to work well enough most of the time, given that miners typically do not accept
|
||||||
|
privately submitted transactions.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
In a system without global broadcast things are very different: the notary clusters \emph{must} accept transactions
|
||||||
|
directly and there is no mechanism to ensure that everyone sees that the transaction is occurring. Sometimes this
|
||||||
|
doesn't matter: most transactions are irrelevant for you and having to download them just wastes resources. But
|
||||||
|
occasionally you do wish to become aware that the ledger state has been changed by someone else. A simple example
|
||||||
|
is an option contract in which you wish to expire the option unless the counterparty has already exercised it. Them
|
||||||
|
exercising the option must not require the seller to sign off on it, as it may be advantageous for the seller to
|
||||||
|
refuse if it would cause them to lose money. Whilst the seller would discover if the buyer had exercised the option
|
||||||
|
when they attempted to expire it, due to the notary informing them that their expiry transaction was a double
|
||||||
|
spend, it is preferable to find out immediately.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The obvious way to implement this is to give notaries the responsibility for ensuring all interested parties find
|
||||||
|
out about a transaction. However, this would require the notaries to know who the involved parties actually are,
|
||||||
|
which would create an undesirable privacy leak. It would also place extra network load on the notaries who would
|
||||||
|
frequently be sending transaction data to parties that may already have it, or may simply not care. In many cases
|
||||||
|
there may be no requirement for the notary to act as a trusted third party for data distribution purposes, as
|
||||||
|
game-theoretic assumptions or legal assurances are sufficiently strong that peers can be trusted to deliver
|
||||||
|
transaction data as part of their regular flows.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
To solve this, app developers can choose whether to request transaction distribution by the notary or not. This
|
||||||
|
works by simply piggybacking on the standard identity lookup flows (see~\cref{sec:identity}). If a node
|
||||||
|
wishes to be informed by the notary when a state is consumed, it can send the certificates linking the random keys
|
||||||
|
in the state to the notary cluster, which then stores it in the local databases as per usual. Once the notary
|
||||||
|
cluster has committed the transaction, key identities are looked up and any which resolve successfully are sent
|
||||||
|
copies of the transaction. In normal operation the notary is not provided with the certificates linking the random
|
||||||
|
keys to the long term identity keys and thus does not know who is involved with the operation (assuming source IP
|
||||||
|
address obfuscation would be implemented, see~\cref{subsec:privacy-upgrades}).
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\subsection{Privacy upgrades}\label{subsec:privacy-upgrades}
|
\subsection{Privacy upgrades}\label{subsec:privacy-upgrades}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Corda has been designed with the future integration of additional privacy technologies in mind. Of all potential
|
Corda has been designed with the future integration of additional privacy technologies in mind. Of all potential
|
||||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user