Cryptography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for software developers, mathematicians and others interested in cryptography. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Dissent claims to be able to be resistant to Sybil attacks.

Dissent seeks to offer accountable anonymity, giving users strong guarantees of anonymity while also protecting online groups or forums from anonymous abuse such as spam, Sybil attacks, and sockpuppetry. Unlike other systems, Dissent can guarantee that each user of an online forum gets exactly one bandwidth share, one vote, or one pseudonym, which other users can block in the event of misbehavior.

However, I went through 3 of their presentations and the only 'accountable' anonymity it promises is to successfully blame a bad actor in a dining cryptography network (DC-Net). There was no mention of how to prevent multiple identities from the same user. I could imaging anyone could connect to the Dissent network through TOR and disguise their multiple identities, merely acting as different people and following the rules.

share|improve this question
Have you read the research paper? That would be the best place to start, for this sort of question. (Often presentations don't include all of the detail; a lot of details are left to the paper, so you really need to read the paper if you want to answer detailed questions like this.) – D.W. Sep 27 '13 at 1:11
@D.W. Thanks. Found it. They are assuming closed, non-public groups. I was considering forums public. We assume a group’s membership is closed and known to its members; Their idea of anonymity is a bit limited. The papers are so dense, I thought I could get an idea from the slides, at least from 3 different sets. – Chloe Sep 27 '13 at 1:46

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.