I've been mostly unimpressed with MaidSAFE approach to the storage problem.
I've been mostly unimpressed with MaidSAFE approach to the storage problem. They (last I checked) are approaching the problem by using quadruple redundancy, no erasure coding. This opens some attack vectors, because an attacker only needs to control 4/4 pieces, something that takes a probability of (attacker control)^4 . Their proof of storage also seems to use nonce's, which require precomputation before uploading the file, and means a limited amount of proofs before you have to fetch the file and compute a bunch of other nonce's. The biggest problem with MaidSAFE's stuff is that it's all over the place. There's no concise document that explains proof-of-storage. Their approach seems enormously complex, which to me indicates a huge likelihood of undetected vulnerabilities (complexity is bad when you want security).
Posted by Taek on Jul 18, 2014, 3:42 PM
Tags
Related issues
- Not sure what you suggest to do.
- Why is this not yet published on the official website and why is there no CVE?
- The biggest problem with having an LLM do this, from what I've observed of at least frontier models, is that the way they are trained...
- The biggest problem with MOND is that it was hand-crafted with additional parameters simply to fit the data.
- (My comment is about detached houses).
- The biggest problem with this is that I can't run my company's own internal benchmarks against this API, because they will be trained int...
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.9,500 issues0 comments
hackernews (Other)
Not sure what you suggest to do.
NewWhy is this not yet published on the official website and why is there no CVE?
NewThe biggest problem with having an LLM do this, from what I've observed of at least frontier models, is that the way they are trained...
The biggest problem with MOND is that it was hand-crafted with additional parameters simply to fit the data.
(My comment is about detached houses).
The biggest problem with this is that I can't run my company's own internal benchmarks against this API, because they will be trained int...
> steer Claude away from over-engineering parts of the system in response to hypothetical concerns.
Why is there no comparison with FLUX 3 Image?
I've been mostly unimpressed with MaidSAFE approach to the storage problem.
I've been mostly unimpressed with MaidSAFE approach to the storage problem. They (last I checked) are approaching the problem by using quadruple redundancy, no erasure coding. This opens some attack vectors, because an attacker only needs to control 4/4 pieces, something that takes a probability of (attacker control)^4 . Their proof of storage also seems to use nonce's, which require precomputation before uploading the file, and means a limited amount of proofs before you have to fetch the file and compute a bunch of other nonce's. The biggest problem with MaidSAFE's stuff is that it's all over the place. There's no concise document that explains proof-of-storage. Their approach seems enormously complex, which to me indicates a huge likelihood of undetected vulnerabilities (complexity is bad when you want security).
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.