Another systemic flaw highlighted in the report is that there is no penalty system in place if a node operator starts acting out of the line.
Umm...does anyone at DARPA actually understand the very basic concepts of a decentralized blockchain? Each operator gets to act in his own best interest by design. Even if that is counter to the best interests of the community. But ultimately, an individual rogue operator has no power to change anything.
There is no penalty by design. In fact, any individual node is essentially always considered untrustworthy. And since anyone can simply close a node and start a new one in minutes, it is futile to implement a penalty system. Enter the Byzantine Generals problem, and Bitcoin's solution. The safety relies on the fact that getting 51% of the nodes to simultaneously misbehave is nearly impossible.
Even DARPAs admonition that "21% are running old software with security flaws" doesn't rise to the level of being a serious threat.
This is just FUD in an attempt to pave the way for CBDC's.
This fear mongering:
Umm...does anyone at DARPA actually understand the very basic concepts of a decentralized blockchain? Each operator gets to act in his own best interest by design. Even if that is counter to the best interests of the community. But ultimately, an individual rogue operator has no power to change anything.
There is no penalty by design. In fact, any individual node is essentially always considered untrustworthy. And since anyone can simply close a node and start a new one in minutes, it is futile to implement a penalty system. Enter the Byzantine Generals problem, and Bitcoin's solution. The safety relies on the fact that getting 51% of the nodes to simultaneously misbehave is nearly impossible.
Even DARPAs admonition that "21% are running old software with security flaws" doesn't rise to the level of being a serious threat.
This is just FUD in an attempt to pave the way for CBDC's.