A multi-account attack (sybil?) can just store the file once, and pretend to store it N times, inflating the cost (attacker revenue) by N fold. I can't see how this is avoidable other than being an authority with insight into most of the internet traffic structure. ...Maybe it is designed to only work within china?
last question was a joke, but note that every single multi-account protection requires a breach of anonymity. That's why most modern distributed protocols try to completely work around any benefit of having multiple accounts. Storage, by definition, can't.
A multi-account attack (sybil?) can just store the file once, and pretend to store it N times, inflating the cost (attacker revenue) by N fold. I can't see how this is avoidable other than being an authority with insight into most of the internet traffic structure. ...Maybe it is designed to only work within china?
last question was a joke, but note that every single multi-account protection requires a breach of anonymity. That's why most modern distributed protocols try to completely work around any benefit of having multiple accounts. Storage, by definition, can't.