Systematizing Decentralization and Privacy: Lessons from 15 Years of Research and Deployments

Abstract

Decentralized systems are a subset of distributed systems where multiple authorities control different components and no authority is fully trusted by all. This implies that any component in a decentralized system is potentially adversarial. We revise fifteen years of research on decentralization and privacy, and provide an overview of key systems, as well as key insights for designers of future systems. We show that decentralized designs can enhance privacy, integrity, and availability but also require careful trade-offs in terms of system complexity, properties provided, and degree of decentralization. These trade-offs need to be understood and navigated by designers. We argue that a combination of insights from cryptography, distributed systems, and mechanism design, aligned with the development of adequate incentives, are necessary to build scalable and successful privacy-preserving decentralized systems.

Defence Against Dark Artefacts: An Analysis of the Assumptions Underpinning Smart Home Cybersecurity Standards

“…Edge computing can reduce to the minimum the amount of data that is distributed (only the necessary data to respond to a certain issue or query is being sent to external actors). Advances in federated learning mean it can be possible to do distributed data analytics in more privacy preserving ways [45]. This is more consistent with the data minimisation principle (article 5 GDPR).…”

Towards a Theory of Digital Network De/centralization: Platform-Infrastructure Lessons Drawn from Blockchain

“…As a result, blockchain as a decentralized technology is usually interpreted as a distributed ledger technology (DLT), even though decentralization and distribution refer to two very different things: distribution simply refers to the way in which something is dispersed, accessed or appropriated by various actors of a social system (usually resources, content or data), while decentralization is a relational concept that defines the way in which interpersonal relationships between these actors are structured, organised and governed. This same confusion is also present in the broader literature on digital networks and the internet where distribution and decentralization are often conflated (Mathew, 2016;Möller and von Rimscha, 2017;Troncoso et al, 2017), and in the literature on digital infrastructures, where both the term distribution and decentralization is used (Hanseth and Lyytinen, 2010;Tilson et al, 2010).…”

“…A networked system in this case is logically centralized if the various nodes within the system behave as a unique and coherent entity, and cannot operate autonomously and independent from each other as this would breach the integrity and consistency of the system. Logical centralization implies some form of social coordination or collaboration, while the various elements in a logically decentralized system are potentially adversarial and might act inconsistently from each other (Troncoso et al, 2017).…”

“…https://medium.com/@aakash_13214/the-scalability-trilemma-in-blockchain-75fb57f646df ; https://medium.com/logos-network/everything-you-know-about-the-scalability-trilemma-is-probably-wrong-bc4f4b7a7ef; and Coindesk: https://www.coindesk.com/decentralization-vs-scale-studies-explore-cryptosgrowing-struggle. confusing conflation of distribution with decentralization (see Troncoso et al, 2017). In Baran's (1964) famous article, the distributed system lacks architectural centralization, even though a high degree of redundancy is precisely the way in which coherence and integrity of the overall system (logical centralization) can be ensured.…”

Avoiding the internet of insecure industrial things

“…73 Malware was the dominant cybersecurity threat of 2016, 74 and it has become more targeted, as financial Trojans used in the 2016 Bangladesh Bank heist show (where $81m was stolen through fraudulent transactions). 75 The vulnerabilities posed by a recent ransomware attack, 2017's WannaCry, highlight risks of longitudinal security management in industrial IoT futures.…”