Voting Pool Security Measurement - Revision history

Justusranvier: /* Effective Security Factors */

2014-08-07T20:44:36Z

‎Effective Security Factors

Justusranvier: /* Effective Security Factors */ fix width of quote box

2014-08-07T20:44:15Z

‎Effective Security Factors: fix width of quote box

Justusranvier: Undo revision 2130 by Justusranvier (talk)

2014-07-11T13:21:34Z

Undo revision 2130 by Justusranvier (talk)

Justusranvier: Justusranvier moved page Voting Pool Compostion to Voting Pool Security Measurement

2014-07-11T12:57:17Z

Justusranvier moved page Voting Pool Compostion to Voting Pool Security Measurement

Justusranvier: add category

2014-07-11T12:56:25Z

add category

Justusranvier: /* Effective Redundancy Factor */

2014-07-11T11:19:12Z

‎Effective Redundancy Factor

Justusranvier: Effective theft resistance and redundancy factors

2014-07-11T11:18:38Z

Effective theft resistance and redundancy factors

Justusranvier: /* Calculating Effective Security */

2014-07-11T11:10:59Z

‎Calculating Effective Security

Justusranvier: /* Calculation */ Note the calculation changes if there are anonymous members.

2014-07-11T11:09:49Z

‎Calculation: Note the calculation changes if there are anonymous members.

Justusranvier: /* Member Independence and Anonymity */ correct Theft Resistance Factor calculation

2014-07-11T11:08:32Z

‎Member Independence and Anonymity: correct Theft Resistance Factor calculation

@@ Line 130: / Line 130: @@
 {{Quote box
   |title = Effective Security
-  |quote = Social, professional, contractual, geographical, or jurisdictional connections between members of a voting pool reduce the pools theft resistance factor.
+  |quote = Social, professional, contractual, geographical, or jurisdictional connections between members of a voting pool reduce the pool's theft resistance factor.
   |align = right
   |width = 25em

@@ Line 128: / Line 128: @@
 ==Effective Security Factors==
-/*{{Quote box
+{{Quote box
   |title = Effective Security
   |quote = Social, professional, contractual, geographical, or jurisdictional connections between members of a voting pool reduce the pools theft resistance factor.
   |align = right
-  |width =
+  |width = 25em
   |border =
   |fontsize =
@@ Line 145: / Line 145: @@
   |salign =
   |sstyle =
-}}*/
+}}
 The actual security level of a voting pool will always be lower than the theoretical factors, because no two members will ever be 100% independent from each other. The effects which reduce the independence of voting pool members can be classified as social, professional, contractual, geographical, or jurisdictional. Any connections of these types reduce the effective theft resistance factor of the pool.

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:21, 11 July 2014
Line 127:		Line 127:

	==Effective Security Factors==		==Effective Security Factors==
		+
		+	/*{{Quote box
		+	\|title = Effective Security
		+	\|quote = Social, professional, contractual, geographical, or jurisdictional connections between members of a voting pool reduce the pools theft resistance factor.
		+	\|align = right
		+	\|width =
		+	\|border =
		+	\|fontsize =
		+	\|bgcolor =
		+	\|style =
		+	\|title_bg =
		+	\|title_fnt =
		+	\|tstyle =
		+	\|qalign =
		+	\|qstyle =
		+	\|quoted =
		+	\|salign =
		+	\|sstyle =
		+	}}*/

	The actual security level of a voting pool will always be lower than the theoretical factors, because no two members will ever be 100% independent from each other. The effects which reduce the independence of voting pool members can be classified as social, professional, contractual, geographical, or jurisdictional. Any connections of these types reduce the effective theft resistance factor of the pool.		The actual security level of a voting pool will always be lower than the theoretical factors, because no two members will ever be 100% independent from each other. The effects which reduce the independence of voting pool members can be classified as social, professional, contractual, geographical, or jurisdictional. Any connections of these types reduce the effective theft resistance factor of the pool.

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:56, 11 July 2014
Line 167:		Line 167:

	A rating agency that measures the effective reliability level of pool should rate each of the risk types on a 0%-100% scale between every pair of members, and combine these ratings via an appropriate function to calculate an effective theft resistance factor and redundancy factor.		A rating agency that measures the effective reliability level of pool should rate each of the risk types on a 0%-100% scale between every pair of members, and combine these ratings via an appropriate function to calculate an effective theft resistance factor and redundancy factor.
		+
		+	[[Category: Voting Pool Concepts ]]

@@ Line 162: / Line 162: @@
 ===Effective Redundancy Factor===
-Not every member of a voting pool will achieve exactly equal uptime. To calculate effective redundancy factor sort the members by uptime, add the measured uptimes of the lowest <code>n</code>-<code>m</code> members. For example, for a 3-of-5 voting pool, if the members with the lowest uptime have 95% and 97% respectively, the effective redundancy factor is 1.92.
+Not every member of a voting pool will achieve exactly equal uptime. To calculate effective redundancy factor sort the members by uptime, add the measured uptimes of the lowest <code>n</code>-<code>m</code> members. For example, for a 3-of-5 voting pool, if the members with the two lowest uptime have 95% and 97% respectively, the effective redundancy factor is 1.92.
 ===Effective Reliability Factor===
 A rating agency that measures the effective reliability level of pool should rate each of the risk types on a 0%-100% scale between every pair of members, and combine these ratings via an appropriate function to calculate an effective theft resistance factor and redundancy factor.

← Older revision	Revision as of 12:57, 11 July 2014
(No difference)

@@ Line 126: / Line 126: @@
 |}
-==Effective Security==
+==Effective Security Factors==
 The actual security level of a voting pool will always be lower than the theoretical factors, because no two members will ever be 100% independent from each other. The effects which reduce the independence of voting pool members can be classified as social, professional, contractual, geographical, or jurisdictional. Any connections of these types reduce the effective theft resistance factor of the pool.
@@ Line 154: / Line 154: @@
 Jurisdictional risk is a common feature of developing markets, where a stable governments are prone to be replaced via a coup, and where the coup leaders frequently nationalize formerly-private property.
-===Effective Security===
+===Effective Theft Resistance Factor===
 The effective reliability level of a pool is the reliability level that results from discounting each security factor by a multiplier that accounts for the connectivity of various members. For example, in a 2-of-3 voting pool, if two of the members are 50% socially connected and the other is completely independent, the actual theft resistance factor is 1.5.
@@ Line 160: / Line 160: @@
 Connectivity can not be precisely calculated - the various effects must be estimated on a percentage scale.
-A rating agency that measures the effective reliability level of pool should rate each of the risk types on a 0%-100% scale between every pair of members, and combine these ratings via a compositional function to calculate an effective theft resistance factor and redundancy factor.
+===Effective Redundancy Factor===

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 ====Calculation====
-The theft resistance factor is equal to <code>m</code>.
+The theft resistance factor is equal to <code>m</code>, if there are no anonymous members.
 ====Example====

@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 The calculations above assume that each member of the pool acts separately from the others as an independent decision-making agent. This means that member identity should be publicly known, at least in so far as necessary to verify their are not the same entity.
-If members of a voting pool are completely anonymous, it's not possible to verify they aren't also a known member. Because of this, anonymous members do not contribute to the theft resistance factor but do contribute to the redundancy factor and cost factor. A 5-of-9 voting pool with 2 anonymous members has a theft resistance factor of 3, an redundancy factor of 4, and a cost factor of 13.
+If members of a voting pool are completely anonymous, it's not possible to verify they aren't also a known member. Because of this, the number of anonymous members must be subtracted from <code>m</code> to calculate theft resistance factor. A 5-of-9 voting pool with 2 anonymous members has a theft resistance factor of 1, an redundancy factor of 4, and a cost factor of 13.
 Other factors which could reduce the independence of the members are described in the Effective Security section.