Ensuring trust for non-Helium hotspots (HIP draft, DIY gateways)

0009-non-helium-hotspots.md

@@ -0,0 +1,174 @@
+- Start Date: 02/19/2020
+- HIP PR:
+- Tracking Issue:
+
+# Summary
+[summary]: #summary
+
+Ensuring trust in the network when non-helium hotspots begin to
+participate in the network.
+
+# Motivation
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+Helium's primary objective has always been to establish a decentralized
+permissionless wireless network allowing anyone to be able to join and
+provide RF Coverage with off-the-shelf hardware and open source
+software.
+
+This goal poses some interesting challenges specifically regarding
+network growth. Once we allow non-helium hotspots to be able to join the
+network, we lose the ability to verifiably prove that any sub-network
+created by such new hotspots truly exist physically since it's easily
+possible for dishonest actors to fake geographic locations and radio
+transmit/receive and claim that they are providing network coverage.
+
+# Stakeholders
+[stakeholders]: #stakeholders
+
+- 3rd party hotspot manufacturers
+- DIY hotspot builders
+
+# Detailed Explanation
+[detailed-explanation]: #detailed-explanation
+
+In order to ensure organic network growth while still maintaining
+verifiable trust regarding the claim of location of newly joining 3rd
+party or DIY hotspots we propose that every hotspot joins the network in
+a probationary mode with limited PoC capability.
+
+In the current network onboarding a helium manufactured hotspot allows
+full proof-of-coverage priviledges as soon as the hotspots syncs fully
+with the blockchain, however this behavior is insufficient to ensure
+that non-helium manufactured hotspots or DIY hotspots by individual
+developers adhere to the consensus rules and also honestly provide RF
+coverage.
+
+Currently we know that every single hotspot being added to the network
+is manufactured by helium and has the required hardware to participate
+in proof-of-coverage challenges, as soon as we allow other hotspots to
+join the network we have no verifiable way of being able to separate a
+virtual network from a real one.
+
+To mitigate that, we propose introducing a probationary mode. Every
+single hotspot which will join the network (including helium
+manufactured) will do so in "probation". In probation mode, the PoC
+activity of a hotspot would be limited to only participate in challenges
+which involve the external device.
+
+To gain full PoC priviledges, a hotspot must complete a pre-determined
+number of successful challenges involving the external device. This
+number can be set via chain variable on the blockchain.
+
+Consider the below network where hotspot A-F are non-helium manufactured
+hotspots, with the lines representing RF visibility between hotspots.
+
+                     +------+
+                     |      |
+         +-----------+  A   |
+         |           |      |
+         |           +------+
+         |
+    +------+
+    |      |
+    |  F   |
+    |      |
+    +------+
+        |            +------+
+        |            |      |
+        |            |  B   |
+        |            |      |
+        |            +------+            +------+
+    +------+             |               |      |
+    |      |             |               |  C   |
+    |  E   +-----------------------------+      |
+    |      |             |               +------+
+    +------+             |
+        |                |
+        |             +------+
+        |             |      |
+        +-------------+  D   |
+                      |      |
+                      +------+
+
+There exists no possible way to ensure that these hotspots do not form
+part of a virtual network, since they can easily fake locations and RF
+coverage and verify each other via the existing PoC mechanism.
+
+Until and unless there is a helium (or an authorized retailer)
+manufatured hotspot introduced in the above network, we cannot make any
+conclusions regarding the claim of location of any hotspot A - F.
+
+Reimagining the above network with the introduction of a helium hotspot,
+consider the graph below:
+
+
+                     +------+
+                     |      |
+                     |  A   +---------------+                      
+                     |      |               |                      
+                     +------+               |                      
+                                         +--+---+                  
+    +------+                             |      |                  
+    |      |                             |  X   +<--+Helium Hotspot
+    |  F   |             +---------------+      |                 
+    |      |             |               +------+                 
+    +------+             |                                        
+                     +---+--+                                     
+                     |      |                                     
+                     |  B   |                                     
+                     |      |                                     
+                     +---+--+            +------+                 
+    +------+             |               |      |                 
+    |      |             |               |  C   |                 
+    |  E   |             |               |      |                 
+    |      |             |               +------+                 
+    +---+--+             |                                        
+        |                |                                        
+        |             +--+---+                                    
+        |             |      |                                    
+        +-------------+  D   |                                    
+                      |      |                                    
+                      +------+                                    
+
+We can verifiably prove that A, B, D and E can successfully complete
+PoC challenges which involve hotspot X. Since we know that hotspot X is
+bound to be trustworthy by design and any hotspot which can participate
+in a PoC challenge involving X can only do so if it's operating within
+the rules set by the consensus mechanism and also has an operating radio
+chip.
+
+However, we still cannot make logical conclusions about C and F since
+they have not had any PoC activity with X. Therefore both C and F remain
+in probation mode but A, B, D and E can transition to full PoC activity
+once they all successfully complete `N` PoC challenges successfully
+involvind hotspot X.
+
+
+# Drawbacks
+[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
+
+TBD
+
+# Rationale and Alternatives
+[alternatives]: #rationale-and-alternatives
+
+- Why the limitation for PoC-ing with helium hotspots?
+
+The helium hotspot solves the problem of seeding trust in a new network
+by serving as a "trust authority". Furthermore, this authority can be
+delegated to other 3rd party manufacturers. 
+
+# Unresolved Questions
+[unresolved]: #unresolved-questions
+
+TBD
+
+# Deployment Impact
+[deployment-impact]: #deployment-impact
+
+TBD
+
+# Success Metrics [success-metrics]: #success-metrics
+
+TBD