Threat Model
Centrix is designed to resist a range of potential attacks from rational and irrational adversaries.Attack Vectors & Mitigations
Sybil Attacks
Sybil Attacks
Threat: Attacker creates multiple identities to manipulate reputation or votingMitigation:
- Stake requirement to join network
- Proof-of-work for identity registration
- Slashing mechanisms for malicious behavior
- Reputation decay for new accounts
Result Manipulation (Byzantine Fault)
Result Manipulation (Byzantine Fault)
Threat: Provider submits false computation results to earn CXT dishonestlyMitigation:
- Redundant execution on multiple providers
- Zero-knowledge proof verification
- Merkle proof spot-checking
- Reputation-based filtering
Eclipse Attacks
Eclipse Attacks
Threat: Attacker isolates nodes from honest network participantsMitigation:
- Random peer selection
- Multiple connection paths
- Rate limiting on peer connections
- Incentivized relay nodes
Resource Exhaustion
Resource Exhaustion
Threat: Attacker submits impossible tasks to waste provider resourcesMitigation:
- Collateral requirement for task submission
- Resource limits per task
- Timeout mechanisms
- Quality reputation for requestors
51% Attack
51% Attack
Threat: Attacker controls majority of voting power to change protocolMitigation:
- Token distribution across many parties
- Quorum requirements for governance
- Timelock on major changes
- Community emergency pause mechanism
Cryptographic Guarantees
Computation Integrity
Zero-knowledge proofs verify computation correctness without reexecution
Data Confidentiality
End-to-end encryption ensures only authorized parties access task data
Authentication
Digital signatures prove identity and authorize transactions
Non-Repudiation
Blockchain records permanently log all transactions and disputes
Verification Methods
Multi-Tiered Verification
Redundant Execution
Same task runs on 2-3 independent providers. Results must match.
ZK Proofs
Cryptographic proof that computation was done correctly without revealing details
Spot Checking
Random audits of provider work to catch systematic fraud
Economic Security
Staking & Slashing:- Providers must stake tokens proportional to task value
- Fraudulent results result in stake loss (slashing)
- Higher stakes for higher-value tasks
- Reputation penalties compound economic damage
- Task value: 100 CXT
- Provider stake requirement: 50 CXT (50%)
- False result: Lose 50 CXT stake + reputation damage
- Honest result: Earn 50 CXT payment + reputation boost
Incident Response
Security Incident Process
- Detection - Monitoring systems identify anomalies
- Analysis - Security team investigates root cause
- Containment - Affected accounts/nodes quarantined
- Recovery - Legitimate transactions restored/compensated
- Post-Mortem - Public disclosure and protocol improvements
Emergency Mechanisms
Governance can activate emergency pause to halt all transactions during critical security issues.
Security Audit Status
Planned Q2 2026
Third-party security audit by leading blockchain security firm
Bug Bounty Program
Reward researchers for discovering vulnerabilities responsibly
Best Practices for Users
For Providers
- ✅ Keep node software updated
- ✅ Use strong passwords/key management
- ✅ Monitor reputation score regularly
- ✅ Run on isolated/dedicated hardware
- ❌ Don’t share private keys
- ❌ Don’t accept risky/unverifiable tasks
For Requestors
- ✅ Use trusted wallet software
- ✅ Verify provider reputation before submitting sensitive work
- ✅ Use encryption for sensitive task data
- ✅ Monitor account activity
- ❌ Don’t submit proprietary algorithms unencrypted
- ❌ Don’t trust new/unknown providers with critical tasks

