METACERT
Published in

METACERT

The MetaCert Protocol Technical Paper: Processes Overview

This section covers uniform resource identifier submission and validation, reputation, as well as disputes.

Download a PDF version of the Technical Paper

Contents

Clicking on each heading will take you that section’s medium post.

1. Index

2. Introduction

3. System Architecture

4. Processes Overview

5. Process Mechanism

6. Decentralized Technical Governance

Processes Overview

URI Submission

A user encounters a phishing site and decides to warn others about it. If they are not already a participant in the Protocol, they sign up to the ChainKit and go through the new URI submission process and propose a classification as phishing for the URI. The ChainKit will then determine whether the URI is a deep linked individual page, domain path level (i.e. folder), entire domain or subdomain as intelligence for validation.

If the URI is already classified as phishing in the Protocol, the participant will be informed and the process will not proceed.

Note: Most URI submissions do not require a token amount to be staked for the classification to of phishing (some classifications such as ownership do).

The submission goes into a review queue within the ChainKit and its status is changed as available for validation. Once a single Validator confirms the proposed classification, parameterized token amounts are transferred to a temporary wallet for the Validator and Submitter.

A smart contract will be initiated containing all the events, from submission to review queue and eventual validation outcome only when a parameterized number of Validator(s) confirm or reject the submission.

When the challenge period has expired without a dispute being raised, the smart contract will be completed and the token amounts transferred from a temporary wallet to the Submitter and Validator(s) involved.

URI Validation

A Validator receives notification that there are submitted URIs for them to review within categories they have chosen and earned enough of a reputation score to review. A Validator’s personal review queue of URIs for review within the ChainKit are randomly assigned.

The URI intelligence that the ChainKit provides to help a Validator form their classification validation decision does not include any Submitter information.

When their decision is made, they participate in the same process described above in the URL submission process.

A Validator can accept or reject a URI submission in their queue or they can choose not to make a judgement on it. There is not an option to remove a validation request. If a Validator chooses not to make a judgement on a URI classification it goes to the next available randomized Validator.

The queue will have a maximum parameterized amount of URIs (i.e. 10) for review at any time in any one Validator’s queue. When their queue is empty, a Validator can request another batch of URIs for review up to the maximum.

A Validator may set their participant account in the ChainKit to pause once they have cleared their current queue.

If a Validator has not signed into the ChainKit for a parameterized period of time and have not viewed their queue, the system will reallocate their URIs for review to another Validator

As an extra measure to prevent bad actors gaming the system, the Protocol ensures that the same Validator cannot approve the same Submitters entries above random statistical coincidence.

For almost all categories, a Validator cannot approve their own submissions unless a category’s parameters allow it, i.e., with domain ownership classification.

Reputation Change

Every participant in the system starts with zero reputation. A participant’s base reputation value is computed based on their ChainKit account activity. Some of the variables that contribute to the reputation algorithm include account age, URIs submitted, validation outcomes, network usage of URIs, and disputed classifications against or in favor.

Once a sufficient base reputation has been achieved, a participant’s reputation can level up to become a special class such as an “Expert”, when consensus is reached within the Protocol system which determines at what score leveling up can occur.

Reputation score can be negatively impacted whenever a submission classification proposal is not validated or when a validation is overturned by a dispute claim. Reputation can also be affected for a dispute if the dispute claim is repealed. Each of these events and associated smart contracts forms a series of ledger entries.

It’s possible for a participant to generate a negative value reputation score, and lose their ability to participate in the Protocol and lose any in-process Tokens held in a temporary wallet in the system.

The exact mechanics of the algorithm for reputation will be publicly published and iterate over time to ensure continuous improvement and transparency on this critical element of the Protocol.

Dispute a Classification

If a dispute against a URI classification is made by a participant in the Protocol, an event in the ChainKit initiates a smart contract between the disputer and the first Validator of the classification. This smart contract contains the details of the claim and dispute.

A challenge fund is created for the dispute and held in a temporary wallet within the Protocol. The outcome of the dispute will determine how the challenge fund is distributed.

Contents

Clicking on each heading will take you that section’s medium post.

1. Index

2. Introduction

3. System Architecture

4. Processes Overview

5. Process Mechanism

6. Decentralized Technical Governance

🖌 Please feel free to respond with questions or comments about anything you read in our White Paper or Technical Paper directly within Medium, and be sure to engage with other members of the community who also have questions or comments.

🔐 MetaCert Protocol is based on established enterprise-grade technology that powers live products. These products protect hundreds of thousands of people on the Internet today, but this is just the start. We need the community to help us iterate this work. Together we can help make the Internet a safer place for everyone.

Don’t forget to click 👏🏻 to let MetaCert and others know how much you appreciate this post.

Install Cryptonite to help protect your crypto from phishing scams. https://metacertprotocol.com/cryptonite

Use our Telegram Security Bot to check the status of links and crypto addresses, and warn users about phishing in Telegram communities. https://metacertprotocol.com/telegram-bot

Join our Telegram channel where you can engage with the core team and the community. https://t.me/metacert

Download a PDF version of the Technical Paper

--

--

--

Zero Trust cybersecurity for teams and remote workers

Recommended from Medium

Ada Release — Proof of Attention, APPC Credits and Donations

MBC — The World’s Only International Shipping Intelligent Trading Platform

Tokoin Monthly Recap: May 2021

What is a Smart Contract? (And Why is it Good for Business?)

From Color Block Suit to Blockchain

Eight Ways the Blockchain Can Influence Our Environment

Eight Ways the Blockchain Can Influence Our Environment

How to create, buy and sell NFTs

Blockchain and Ecommerce are an Unparalleled Combination (Part II)

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Paul Walsh

Paul Walsh

MetaCert CEO. Passionate about Cybersecurity, Blockchain, Crypto, Snowboarding & Red Wine. Part of the AOL team that launched AIM. Co-founded 2 W3C Standards.

More from Medium

Smart Token Labs working on Attestation based ticketing for Devcon

On-chain Decentralized Governance

$100k Distributed in zkTech Dedicated Gitcoin Grant Side Round

A Lodestar for Ethereum Consensus #3