Spyke

Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.

View original on lemmy.amxl.com
cryptography·CryptographybyA1kmm

Project Uniquonym - a concept (not yet implemented) for coupling pseudonymity with limits on sybil attacks / astroturfing

I'm logging my idea across a series of posts with essays on different sub-parts of it in a Lemmy community created for it.

What do you think - does anyone see any obvious problems that might come up as it is implemented? Is there anything you'd do differently?

There are still some big decisions (e.g. how to do the ZKP part, including what type of ZKPs to use), and some big unknowns (I'm still not certain implementing TLS 1.3 on TPM 2.0 primitives is going to stand up and/or create a valid audit hash attestation to go into the proof, and the proofs might test the limits of what's possible).

https://lemmy.amxl.com/c/project_uniquonym?dataType=Post&sort=OldOpen linkView original on lemmy.amxl.com
4

No replies yet

No comments on the original post yet.
Project Uniquonym - a concept (not yet implemented) for coupling pseudonymity with limits on sybil attacks / astroturfing | Spyke