Hello all, some questions I have reading along:
This botnet returning no income-argument does not work for this other, ah, government initiative-argument, running vaults for the heck of it and then take them away again to disrupt?
Maybe having reached one of it’s glorious targets, like “a large safe network (100K - 1M) node network”, it is immune to a large scale disturbance but what about the growing-up year or two years. It already happened once, although “good intentions” were involved. Or should’t I have said “maybe”, but how proven is this proof?
Could a botnet-entrepreneur start his own safenetwork, disregarding patents and possibly not complying with licenses, let alone the law where it applies. Maybe not for the vaults but going for a solid network?
If said entrepreneur of government would take part in THE Safenetwork with (a lot of) nodes would he or they then drop vaults by other means and try to remote control those or an adapted vault itself calling home once in while?
So there is no way to discern between this and a regular installed vault it seems. Some time ago there was a discussion in this forum:
Also:
These are then thrown away by the network to remove any link with the person and the mined unique identifier. These requests would be as unknown up front as a traditional captcha. If the client kept these, they are of no use, they have been made one time use only as a mining attempt.
Maybe you as whizzkids which I’m not want to continue down this alley for a bit? And to follow up on the ants-and-nest-intruders-thing above, doesn’t this tally with “What individuals don’t know the collective does”-type thing the other ants-researcher is after? (link)
So what do you guys think?