What protections do we have against Sybil attacks?

submitted by wizzwizz4 from (en.wikipedia.org)

all 10 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Rate limiting by ip address and whatever protection CloudFlare offers.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Sybil attacks aren't just spamming.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I know, but attempting to login to a bunch of alts within a short time will be blocked by rate limiting.

If you really want to push this forward, you can make a list of how other sites prevent/mitigate Sybil. Voat has new accounts highly locked down and Notabug requires proof of work to vote. Maybe someone's approach would be a good fit here.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's better protection than I thought. Nice going!

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You mean people stealing other people's names from other sites? We can't really do anything about that, the names are first come first serve.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

No, I mean a MartinTimothy who's actually good at it.

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Oh one person pretending to be many people, to create a false consensus? We already disabled their ability to vote on themselves, what else is needed?

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Two separate people, voting on each other. A team of people, voting on each other.

(Misleading rewordings of already misleading titles, leading to "evidence-supported" stuff that isn't supported by the content of the article, but that isn't actually the same issue so I don't know why I've written it.)

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Alright, that can be a problem, but isn't that just an expression of popular will then?

How do you propose fixing this issue? Because I don't see a clear solution

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's the question, isn't it? I don't either.