Initial Transport Privacy through Whisper Specification

oskarth commented 5 years ago

This should give an overview of the transport privacy layer through Whisper. It should also mention requirements such as Devp2p (plus possible workarounds like libp2p mirror (side note)).

It should be structured in such a way that Whisper is an implementation detail, and it can be replaced by another spec, such as use of PSS, or Tor, or local network, or mixnet, etc.

We have a great start with @adambabik's document.

See https://github.com/status-im/specs/blob/master/x8.md for current draft.

Acceptance criteria

[ ] Someone can read this and implement a Status client (including links to other specs)
[ ] They should clarify what security guarantees the protocol(s) provide and don't provide
[ ] As well as what each protocol/layer requires and provides
[ ] They should be described as orthogonal pieces, so if someone wants a different transport that should ideally require minimal tweaks to the protocols

In terms of who will judge, it'll be 2-3 main groups initially:

[ ] Ourselves in protocol group
[ ] Client implementers (Core, Embark and Nimbus people i.e. status-js and Stratus)
[ ] Core dev calls participants

Questions spec should answer

Properties such as:

Privacy

Sender Anonymity Recipient Anonymity Particip. Anonymity Unlinkability Global Adv. Resistant Usability

Contact Discovery No Message Delays No Message Drops Easy Initialization No Fees Required Adoption

Topology Independent No Additional Service Spam/Flood Resistant Low Storage Low Bandwidth Low Computation Asynchronous Scalable

Example technologies

Store-and-forward for mailserver Messaging broadcast for Whisper Specifically mention blockchain and how messages are not on blockchain but uses same devp2p stack

oskarth commented 5 years ago

FYI updated @adambabik

oskarth commented 5 years ago

Additionally, possibly separate, elaborate on mailserver system model and client pov https://github.com/status-im/status-react/blob/develop/src/status_im/mailserver/core.cljs

oskarth commented 4 years ago

Largely done; closing as no longer relevant. If we want to do further QA of specs, I suggest we do this through more specific issues.

status-im / specs