Merge pull request #3 from status-im/storj

Evaluation of the Storj whitepaper

evaluations/storj.md

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+An evaluation of the Storj whitepaper
+=====================================
+
+2020-12-22 Mark Spanbroek
+
+https://storj.io/storjv3.pdf
+
+Goal of this evaluation is to find things to adopt or avoid while designing
+Dagger. It is not meant to be a criticism of Storj.
+
+#### Pros:
+
++ Performance is considered throughout the design
++ Provides an Amazon S3 compatible API (§2.4)
++ Bandwidth usage of storage nodes is aggressively minimized to enable people
+  with bandwidth caps to participate, which is good for decentralization (§2.7)
++ Erasure codes are used for redundancy (§3.4), upload and download speed
+  (§3.4.2), proof of retrievability (§4.13) and repair (§4.7)!
++ BIP32 hierarchical keys are used to grant access to file paths (§3.6, §4.11)
++ Ethereum based token for payments (§3.9)
++ Storage nodes are not paid for uploads to avoid nodes that delete immediately
+  after upload (§4.3)
++ Proof of Work on the node id is used to counter some Sybil attacks (§4.4)
++ Handles key revocations in a decentralized manner (§4.4)
++ Uses a simplified Kademlia DHT for node lookup (§4.6)
++ Uses caching to speed up Kademlia lookups (§4.6)
++ Uses standard-sized chunks (segments) throughout the network (§4.8.2)
++ Erasure coding is applied after encryption, allowing the network to repair
+  redundancy without the need to know the decryption key (§4.8.4)
++ Streaming and seeking within a file are supported (§4.8.4)
++ Micropayments via payment channels (§4.17)
++ Paper has a very nice overview of possible attacks and mitigations (§B)
+
+
+#### Cons:
+
+- Mostly designed for long-lived stable nodes (§2.5)
+- Satellites are the gateway nodes to the network (§4.1.1), whose requirements
+  for uptime and reputation lead to centralization (§4.10). They are also a
+  single point of failure for a user, because it stores file metadata (§4.9).
+- Centralization is further encouraged by having a separate network of approved
+  satellites (§4.21)
+- Clients have to actively perform for audits (§4.13) and execute repair (§4.14)
+  (through their trusted satellite)
+- The network has a complex reputation system (§4.15)
+- Consecutive micropayments are presented as a solution for the trust problems
+  while retrieving (§4.17), which doesn't entirely mitigate withholding attacks.
+- Scaling is hampered by the centralization that happens in the satellites
+  (§6.1)
+- The choice to avoid Byzantine distributed consensus, such as a blockchain
+  (§2.10, §A.3) results in the need for trusted centralized satellites