this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2026
48 points (83.3% liked)

BuyFromEU

4981 readers
8 users here now

Welcome to BuyFromEU - A community dedicated to supporting European-made goods and services!

Feel free to post, comment and vote, be excellent to each other and follow the rules.

We also invite you to subscribe to:

Logo generated with mistral le chat Banner by Christian Lue on unsplash.com

founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] alfredon996@feddit.it 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

There are 2 reason: providing protection against Sybil attacks and rewarding nodes (i.e. the β€œservers”). 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.

[–] Kissaki@feddit.org 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

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.