(S)He Who Disagrees With A Book
What makes one not to prefer a book? Picking up a book is an act of curiosity, or out of necessity, or whatever reason, probably to fill the time? We hope to understand what the author put down; but the book isn’t always that great. Some of you just hate books, whatever the reason. Others are more critical to book contents, tending to criticize while they read. Other more are less critical, or delayed critical (like one self), whom tries to understand what the author said first, then later if...
The Diary: A Trip On The Road
The alarm rang. Snuff! It snapped one's dream in half. Grudgingly getting up, one made for the clock. Right, 5 in the morning. Not the time to go back to sleep, at least not today. Meditations, checked. Filled one's bottle with water, checked. Stuffs packed yesterday, checked. Brushed one's teeth, checked. It's time to leave. Streetlights and headlights lit the road clear, though, light pollution was 'light'. That didn't last long. As the morning sun rise, t...
<100 subscribers
Support Wabinab's Records
51% Attacks on DAO
(S)He Who Disagrees With A Book
What makes one not to prefer a book? Picking up a book is an act of curiosity, or out of necessity, or whatever reason, probably to fill the time? We hope to understand what the author put down; but the book isn’t always that great. Some of you just hate books, whatever the reason. Others are more critical to book contents, tending to criticize while they read. Other more are less critical, or delayed critical (like one self), whom tries to understand what the author said first, then later if...
The Diary: A Trip On The Road
The alarm rang. Snuff! It snapped one's dream in half. Grudgingly getting up, one made for the clock. Right, 5 in the morning. Not the time to go back to sleep, at least not today. Meditations, checked. Filled one's bottle with water, checked. Stuffs packed yesterday, checked. Brushed one's teeth, checked. It's time to leave. Streetlights and headlights lit the road clear, though, light pollution was 'light'. That didn't last long. As the morning sun rise, t...
We have heard about the 51% attacks on validator nodes. It's when more than or equal to 50% of the validator nodes are controlled by hackers, whom could then control transactions, including reversing a transaction. But 51% attacks doesn't occur just for nodes! It could also happens on DAOs.
Consider this situation: a member is a BCH lover (NEAR lover); and he/she brings in members of their family to join the community. So we have active members as families here. Each family members, due to their activity, are allowed to join in a DAO and gain voting power.
Now, imagine the DAO has 13 council/community members with voting power; and out of the 13, 7 of them comes from the same family. If the family members sit down and make a decision without involving the other members, they could dominate DAO votes. It doesn't matter if all the others disagree. What matters is they discussed it within the family (especially if exclusive of community or against community expectations), and they decide something. This is the 51% attacks on DAO. The DAO is now a family-owned DAO; not a community-owned DAO.
It's not just limited to family members. Example, if students from the same class, lead by the teacher, join a same DAO. Assume that the DAO is owned by global community; but because more than 51% of voting members are from that classroom, if they make a decision within the classroom without involving the other voting members, they could perform a 51% attacks on the voting decisions. The DAO is now a classroom-owned DAO; not a community-owned DAO.
If groups decide to join DAO as a group, they should only have one voting power. Whether it's a yes or a no, they could open up a sub-DAO within the group to decide before the final vote is passed as the DAO vote.
Though, this doesn't totally mitigate the problem. Wallets are incognito; and we could never know whether the people behind the wallets know each other or not, can influence each other or not to bend decisions in their will. It’s not like we could track their IP addresses without interfering with their privacy.
Even though DAO are council-based, the council might never seen each other face to face, and doesn't know about each other except they're an active member. This is unlike political council members or school council members where you see each other in real life and know more about them personally; hence decide whether they could or could not perform a 51% attacks. With so little knowledge of each other, it's important to be careful who you add to the council members, and whom have voting power.
(This article is first published on my read.cash)
We have heard about the 51% attacks on validator nodes. It's when more than or equal to 50% of the validator nodes are controlled by hackers, whom could then control transactions, including reversing a transaction. But 51% attacks doesn't occur just for nodes! It could also happens on DAOs.
Consider this situation: a member is a BCH lover (NEAR lover); and he/she brings in members of their family to join the community. So we have active members as families here. Each family members, due to their activity, are allowed to join in a DAO and gain voting power.
Now, imagine the DAO has 13 council/community members with voting power; and out of the 13, 7 of them comes from the same family. If the family members sit down and make a decision without involving the other members, they could dominate DAO votes. It doesn't matter if all the others disagree. What matters is they discussed it within the family (especially if exclusive of community or against community expectations), and they decide something. This is the 51% attacks on DAO. The DAO is now a family-owned DAO; not a community-owned DAO.
It's not just limited to family members. Example, if students from the same class, lead by the teacher, join a same DAO. Assume that the DAO is owned by global community; but because more than 51% of voting members are from that classroom, if they make a decision within the classroom without involving the other voting members, they could perform a 51% attacks on the voting decisions. The DAO is now a classroom-owned DAO; not a community-owned DAO.
If groups decide to join DAO as a group, they should only have one voting power. Whether it's a yes or a no, they could open up a sub-DAO within the group to decide before the final vote is passed as the DAO vote.
Though, this doesn't totally mitigate the problem. Wallets are incognito; and we could never know whether the people behind the wallets know each other or not, can influence each other or not to bend decisions in their will. It’s not like we could track their IP addresses without interfering with their privacy.
Even though DAO are council-based, the council might never seen each other face to face, and doesn't know about each other except they're an active member. This is unlike political council members or school council members where you see each other in real life and know more about them personally; hence decide whether they could or could not perform a 51% attacks. With so little knowledge of each other, it's important to be careful who you add to the council members, and whom have voting power.
(This article is first published on my read.cash)
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
No comments yet