Many cryptocurrencies are forced to implement either a fee-for-service model or a proof-of-work model. In fee-for-service models such as Siacoin, users pay for the services that they use. While fee-for-service models are effective at reducing Sybil attacks,  they drive many users away from the system especially when similar services are available for free. Proof-of-work systems such as those used in Hashcash and Nano require users to calculate a small proof- of-work before sending a message or transaction. These small proof-of-work systems can be more egalitarian than the fee-for-service model but can be vulnerable to attackers who possess large amounts of computing power. 

Service Attacks Definition

Users of decentralised blockchains are not required to provide digital or physical identifiers which helps users who lack identity or are being persecuted because of it but create vulnerability to Sybil attacks where a malicious actor produces numerous false identities and uses these identities to spam the network with requests. 

University of Connecticut

- IP and Packet Blocking
- Denial of Service Attacks
- Swarm Flagging

Loki Attack Prevention

https://loki.network/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/LokiWhitepaperV3_1.pdf

Loki Whitepaper

Although the Service Node network has no central points of failure, there are two significant censorship threats to the network, being harvesting attacks and deep packet inspection 

IP and Packet Blocking

Denial of Service Attacks

When nodes operate in a trustless environment without a centralised leader enforcing rules, maintaining proper node behavior on the network becomes difficult. Although Service Nodes in Loki must hold the correct collateral requirement, they may choose to not route traffic or store data in their memory pools. Because this option is financially beneficial, a system of distributed flagging needs to be proposed to remove underperforming nodes. 

Learn Before

Related

Learn After