Advertisement

Wirtschaftsinformatik

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 285–292 | Cite as

Resource allocation in peer-to-peer networks

An excess-based economic model
  • Christian Grothoff
WI—Schwerpunktaufsatz

Abstract

Resource allocation in peer-to-peer networks — An excess-based economic model This paper describes economic aspects of GNUnet, a peer-to-peer framework for anonymous distributed file-sharing. GNUnet is decentralized; all nodes are equal peers. In particular, there are no trusted entities in the network. This paper describes an economic model to perform resource allocation and defend against malicious participants in this context. The approach presented does not use credentials or payments; rather, it is based on trust. The design is much like that of a cooperative game in which peers take the role of players. Nodes must cooperate to achieve individual goals. In such a scenario, it is important to be able to distinguish between nodes exhibiting friendly behavior and those exhibiting malicious behavior. GNUnet aims to provide anonymity for its users. Its design makes it hard to link a transaction to the node where it originated from. While anonymity requirements make a global view of the end-points of a transaction infeasible, the local link-to-link messages can be fully authenticated. Our economic model is based entirely on this local view of the network and takes only local decisions.

Keywords

peer-to-peer anonymity resource allocation trust 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [AdHu00]
    Adar, E.; Huberman, B. A.: Free riding on gnutella. Tech. report, Xerox Parc, Aug. 2000.Google Scholar
  2. [Back02]
    Back, A.: Hash cash — a denial of service counter-measure. Tech. report, http://www.cypherspace.org/~adam/hashcash/, August 2002, as of 2003-03-08.Google Scholar
  3. [BeGr02]
    Bennett, K.; Grothoff, C.: gap — practical anonymous networking. Tech. report, Purdue University, 2002.Google Scholar
  4. [BGHP02]
    Bennett, K.; Grothoff, C; Horozov, T.; Patrascu, I.: Efficient sharing of encrypted data. In: Proceedings of ASCIP 2002, Springer-Verlag, 2002.Google Scholar
  5. [ChFN89]
    Chaum, D.; Fiat, A.; Naor, M.: Untraceable electronic cash. Advances in Cryptology — Crypto ’88 Proceedings, Springer-Verlag, 1989, pp. 319–327.Google Scholar
  6. [CSWH00]
    Clarke, I.; Sandberg, O.; Wiley, B.; Hong, T. W.: Freenet: A distributed anonymous information storage and retrieval system. In: Proceedings of the ICSI Workshop on Design Issues in Anonymity and Unobservability. International Computer Science Institute, Springer-Verlag, 2000.Google Scholar
  7. [DVPS02]
    Damiani, E.; di Vimercati, D. C; Paraboschi, S.; Samarati, P.; Violante, F.: A reputation-based approach for choosing reliable resources in peer-to-peer networks. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM conference on Computer and communications security. ACM Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  8. [DiFM01]
    Dingledine, R.; Freedman, M. J.; Molnar, D.: Peer-to-peer — harnessing the power of disruptive technologies, ch. Accountability. O’Reilly & Associates, 2001.Google Scholar
  9. [Ding00]
    Dingledine, R.: The free haven project. Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2000.Google Scholar
  10. [DiSy02]
    Dingledine, R.; Syverson, P.: Open issues in the economics of anonymity. http://www.freehaven.net/doc/econws02/, 2002.Google Scholar
  11. [Clip00]
    Clip2: Gnutella Protocol Specification v0.4. 2000.Google Scholar
  12. [LeSB03]
    Lee, S.; Sherwood, R.; Bhattacharjee, B.: Cooperative peer groups in nice. In: Proceedings of IEEE Infocom 2003, 2003.Google Scholar
  13. [Mojo00]
    MojoNation: MojoNation, Technology overview. http://www.mojonation.net/, 2000-02-15.Google Scholar
  14. [Paxs01]
    Paxson, V.: An analysis of using reflectors for distributed denial-of-service attacks. In: ACM Computer Communications Review (CCR) 31 (2001) 3.Google Scholar
  15. [ReRu98]
    Reiter, M. K.; Rubin, A. D.: Crowds: anonymity for Web transactions. In: ACM Transactions on Information and System Security 1 (1998), 1, 66–92.Google Scholar
  16. [RiSa96]
    Rivest, R. L.; Shamir, A.: Payword and micromint: Two simple micropayment schemes. In: Security Protocols Workshop, 1996, pp. 69–87.Google Scholar
  17. [ShBh02]
    Sherwood, R.; Bhattacharjee, B.: P5: A protocol for scalable anonymous communication. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2002.Google Scholar
  18. [WaRC00]
    Waldman, M.; Rubin, A. D.; Cranor, L. F.: Publius: A robust, tamper-evident, censorship-resistant, web publishing system. In: Proc. 9th USENIX Security Symposium, August 2000, pp. 59–72.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Grothoff
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer SciencesPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations