[Rendezvous] Tracking issue on how to mitigate spam attacks
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- No language data
- Stars
- 1.8k
- Forks
- 320
- Avg merge
- 11d 15h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 1
Description
This issue tracks the to-be-defined way of how the rendezvous protocol can mitigate spam attacks against rendezvous points.
Originally, PoW was considered a viable option but this approach is now being considered inadequate (see https://github.com/libp2p/specs/pull/334 and https://github.com/libp2p/specs/issues/337).
Alternative ideas mentioned so far are:
- Verifiable / deterministic randomness in how the rendezvous node was chosen among a fleet of nodes. The exact behaviour is yet to be defined.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reading the rendezvous protocol context and the original PoW proposal, then review pull request 334 and issue 337 for why that approach is inadequate. Compare the proposed deterministic or verifiable randomness idea with the spam-attack requirements. Done means the mitigation behavior is defined, rather than remaining a tracking issue.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- networking
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 20/100