There are 2 reason: providing protection against Sybil attacks and rewarding nodes (i.e. the “servers”). From the whitepaper you linked:
This staking system provides a defence against Sybil attacks by limiting attackers based on the
amount of financial resources they have available. The staking system also achieves two other goals
which further reduce the likelihood of a Sybil attack.
Firstly, the need for attackers to buy or control Session Tokens to run Session Nodes creates a
market feedback loop which increases the cost of acquiring sufficient tokens to run large portions
of the network. That is, as the attacker buys or acquires more tokens and stakes them, removing
them from the circulating supply, the supply of the Session Token is decreased while the demand
from the attacker must be sustained. This causes the price of any remaining Session Tokens to
increase, creating an increasing price feedback loop which correlates with the scale of the attack.
The other advantage of a staked blockchain network is that Session Nodes earn rewards for the
work they do, paid as Session Tokens from the Session Node Staking Reward Pool. This system
makes Session distinct from altruistic networks like Tor and I2P and instead provides an incentive
linked directly with the performance of a Session Node.
I’m not convinced after reading this paragraph about Sybil attack defence. Cost favors large actors like state secret service and sponsored hacking. A free to buy into node network suggests with enough or cheaper early investment, you control the network.
Seems like it would only prevent small and ad-hoc actors. To me, even smells like it could be white-washing misleading.
I haven’t looked into how the network is used specifically. If it’s auth like vatlark suggested it would be bad. If it’s purely delivery, I’m still wondering where blockchain comes into that, with the term suggesting persistency and agreement-based processes.
There are 2 reason: providing protection against Sybil attacks and rewarding nodes (i.e. the “servers”). From the whitepaper you linked:
I’m not convinced after reading this paragraph about Sybil attack defence. Cost favors large actors like state secret service and sponsored hacking. A free to buy into node network suggests with enough or cheaper early investment, you control the network.
Seems like it would only prevent small and ad-hoc actors. To me, even smells like it could be white-washing misleading.
I haven’t looked into how the network is used specifically. If it’s auth like vatlark suggested it would be bad. If it’s purely delivery, I’m still wondering where blockchain comes into that, with the term suggesting persistency and agreement-based processes.