search

sbellem / qtee

Exploring the physical limits of trusted hardware in the classical and quantum settings to achieve security through physics.
GNU General Public License v3.0
13 stars 3 forks source link

Wrong sentence in motivation #9

Open binyebarwe opened 3 months ago

binyebarwe commented 3 months ago

The document mentions: The only current known defense against chip attacks is trying to make the cost of a chip attack as high as possible. To make things worst This argument is valid, so why is it written (To make things worst). Especially if you consider the Bitcoin model. Bitcoin, besides being based on software, it has an economy behinds it. Bitcoin can be destroyed using economic resources. There are calculations around this: https://cryptopotato.com/this-is-how-much-you-would-need-to-spend-to-execute-51-attacks-on-bitcoin-and-ethereum/

I do think there needs to be a calculus on how much $ would cost to a chip attack.

There's a possibility that using physics we don't need to rely in an economic incentive, but for now even Bitcoin relies on it.

sbellem commented 3 months ago

Valid point! Will try to reformulate the sentence to make it clearer! The issue is not exactly that relying on economic incentives is a bad thing, but that in the case of chips, the cost of an attack is guessed to be very low in the context of web3 protocols. So, the "To make things worst ..." words build on the guess that the costs of chip attacks is relatively low (e.g. 1 million dollars), but that in addition to being low we don't even have a precise number, and that's why it's worst.