這是前些日子爆出已經被加拿大法院接理對藏傳佛教噶舉派法王的訟訴。(加拿大法院鏈接在此:https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/09/2021BCSC0939cor1.htm?fbclid=IwAR2FLZlzmUIGTBaTuKPVchEqqngcE3Qy6G_C0TWNWVKa2ksbIYkVJVMQ8f8)
這位法王的桃色事件,我是幾年前才聽到。但,藏傳佛教的高層有這些性醜聞,我已經聽了幾十年。我以前的一位前女友也被一些堪布藉故上她的家摟抱過,也有一些活佛跟她表白。(這不只是她,其他地方我也聽過不少)
這是一個藏傳佛教裡面系統式的問題。
很多時候發生這種事情,信徒和教主往往都是說女方得不到寵而報仇,或者說她們也精神病,或者說她們撒謊。
我不排除有這種可能性,但,多過一位,甚至多位出來指證的時候,我是傾向於相信『沒有那麼巧這麼多有精神病的女人要撒謊來報仇』。
大寶法王的桃色事件,最先吹哨的是一位台灣的在家信徒,第二位是香港的女出家人,現在加拿大又多一位公開舉報上法庭。
對大寶法王信徒來說,這一次的比較麻煩,因為是有孩子的。(關於有孩子的,我早在法王的桃色事件曝光時,就有聽聞)
如果法庭勒令要驗證DNA,這對法王和他的信徒來說,會很尷尬和矛盾,因為做或不做,都死。
你若問我,我覺得『人數是有力量的』,同時我也覺得之後有更多的人站出來,是不出奇的。
我也藉此呼籲各方佛教徒,如果你們真的愛佛教,先別說批判,但如鴕鳥般不討論這些爭議,你是間接害了佛教。
(下面是我從加拿大法院鏈接拷貝下來的內容,當中有很多細節。)
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
F. Delay / Prejudice
CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION
[1] The claimant applies to amend her notice of family claim to seek spousal support. At issue is whether the claimant’s allegations give rise to a reasonable claim she lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship, so as to give rise to a potential entitlement to spousal support under the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 (“FLA”).
[2] The facts alleged by the claimant do not fit within a traditional concept of marriage. The claimant does not allege that she and the respondent ever lived together. Indeed, she has only met the respondent in person four times: twice very briefly in a public setting; a third time in private, when she alleges the respondent sexually assaulted her; and a fourth and final occasion, when she informed the respondent she was pregnant with his child.
[3] The claimant’s case is that what began as a non-consensual sexual encounter evolved into a loving and affectionate relationship. That relationship occurred almost entirely over private text messages. The parties rarely spoke on the telephone, and never saw one another during the relationship, even over video. The claimant says they could not be together because the respondent is forbidden by his station and religious beliefs from intimate relationships or marriage. Nonetheless, she alleges, they formed a marriage-like relationship that lasted from January 2018 to January 2019.
[4] The respondent denies any romantic relationship with the claimant. While he acknowledges providing emotional and financial support to the claimant, he says it was for the benefit of the child the claimant told him was his daughter.
[5] The claimant’s proposed amendment raises a novel question: can a secret relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world be like a marriage? In my view, that question should be answered by a trial judge after hearing all of the evidence. The alleged facts give rise to a reasonable claim the claimant lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship. Accordingly, I grant the claimant leave to amend her notice of family claim.
BACKGROUND
[6] It should be emphasized that this is an application to amend pleadings only. The allegations by the claimant are presumed to be true for the purposes of this application. Those allegations have not been tested in a court of law.
[7] The respondent, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, is a high lama of the Karma Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism. He has been recognized and enthroned as His Holiness, the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa. Without meaning any disrespect, I will refer to him as Mr. Dorje in these reasons for judgment.
[8] Mr. Dorje leads a monastic and nomadic lifestyle. His true home is Tibet, but he currently resides in India. He receives followers from around the world at the Gyuto Monetary in India. He also travels the world teaching Tibetan Buddhist Dharma and hosting pujas, ceremonies at which Buddhists express their gratitude and devotion to the Buddha.
[9] The claimant, Vikki Hui Xin Han, is a former nun of Tibetan Buddhism. Ms. Han first encountered Mr. Dorje briefly at a large puja in 2014. The experience of the puja convinced Ms. Han she wanted to become a Buddhist nun. She met briefly with Mr. Dorje, in accordance with Kagyu traditions, to obtain his approval to become a nun.
[10] In October 2016, Ms. Han began a three-year, three-month meditation retreat at a monastery in New York State. Her objective was to learn the practices and teachings of the Kagyu Lineage. Mr. Dorje was present at the retreat twice during the time Ms. Han was at the monastery.
[11] Ms. Han alleges that on October 14, 2017, Mr. Dorje sexually assaulted her in her room at the monastery. She alleges that she became pregnant from the assault.
[12] After she learned that she was pregnant, Ms. Han requested a private audience with Mr. Dorje. In November 2017, in the presence of his bodyguards, Ms. Han informed Mr. Dorje she was pregnant with his child. Mr. Dorje initially denied responsibility; however, he provided Ms. Han with his email address and a cellphone number, and, according to Ms. Han, said he would “prepare some money” for her.
[13] Ms. Han abandoned her plan to become a nun, left the retreat and returned to Canada. She never saw Mr. Dorje again.
[14] After Ms. Han returned to Canada, she and Mr. Dorje began a regular communication over an instant messaging app called Line. They also exchanged emails and occasionally spoke on the telephone.
[15] The parties appear to have expressed care and affection for one another in these communications. I say “appear to” because it is difficult to fully understand the meaning and intentions of another person from brief text messages, especially those originally written in a different language. The parties wrote in a private shorthand, sharing jokes, emojis, cartoon portraits and “hugs” or “kisses”. Ms. Han was the more expressive of the two, writing more frequently and in longer messages. Mr. Dorje generally participated in response to questions or prompting from Ms. Han, sometimes in single word messages.
[16] Ms. Han deposes that she believed Mr. Dorje was in love with her and that, by January 2018, she and Mr. Dorje were living in a “conjugal relationship”.
[17] During their communications, Ms. Han expressed concern that her child would be “illegitimate”. She appears to have asked Mr. Dorje to marry her, and he appears to have responded that he was “not ready”.
[18] Throughout 2018, Mr. Dorje transferred funds in various denominations to Ms. Han through various third parties. Ms. Han deposes that these funds were:
a) $50,000 CDN to deliver the child and for postpartum care she was to receive at a facility in Seattle;
b) $300,000 CDN for the first year of the child’s life;
c) $20,000 USD for a wedding ring, because Ms. Han wrote “Even if we cannot get married, you must buy me a wedding ring”;
d) $400,000 USD to purchase a home for the mother and child.
[19] On June 19, 2018, Ms. Han gave birth to a daughter in Richmond, B.C.
[20] On September 17, 2018, Mr. Dorje wrote, ”Taking care of her and you are my duty for life”.
[21] Ms. Han’s expectation was that the parties would live together in the future. She says they planned to live together. Those plans evolved over time. Initially they involved purchasing a property in Toronto, so that Mr. Dorje could visit when he was in New York. They also discussed purchasing property in Calgary or renting a home in Vancouver for that purpose. Ms. Han eventually purchased a condominium in Richmond using funds provided by Mr. Dorje.
[22] Ms. Han deposes that the parties made plans for Mr. Dorje to visit her and meet the child in Richmond. In October 2018, however, Mr. Dorje wrote that he needed to “disappear” to Europe. He wrote:
I will definitely find a way to meet her
And you
Remember to take care of yourself if something happens
[23] The final plan the parties discussed, according to Ms. Han, was that Mr. Dorje would sponsor Ms. Han and the child to immigrate to the United States and live at the Kagyu retreat centre in New York State.
[24] In January 2019, Ms. Han lost contact with Mr. Dorje.
[25] Ms. Han commenced this family law case on July 17, 2019, seeking child support, a declaration of parentage and a parentage test. She did not seek spousal support.
[26] Ms. Han first proposed a claim for spousal support in October 2020 after a change in her counsel. Following an exchange of correspondence concerning an application for leave to amend the notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s counsel wrote that Ms. Han would not be advancing a spousal support claim. On March 16, 2020, counsel reversed course, and advised that Ms. Han had instructed him to proceed with the application.
[27] When this application came on before me, the trial was set to commence on June 7, 2021. The parties were still in the process of discoveries and obtaining translations for hundreds of pages of documents in Chinese characters.
[28] At a trial management conference on May 6, 2021, noting the parties were not ready to proceed, Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to April 11, 2022.
ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
[29] To claim spousal support in this case, Ms. Han must plead that she lived with Mr. Dorje in a marriage-like relationship. This is because only “spouses” are entitled to spousal support, and s. 3 of the Family Law Act defines a spouse as a person who is married or has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship:
3 (1) A person is a spouse for the purposes of this Act if the person
(a) is married to another person, or
(b) has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship, and
(i) has done so for a continuous period of at least 2 years, or
(ii) except in Parts 5 [Property Division] and 6 [Pension Division], has a child with the other person.
[30] Because she alleges she has a child with Mr. Dorje, Ms. Han need not allege that the relationship endured for a continuous period of two years to claim spousal support; but she must allege that she lived in a marriage-like relationship with him at some point in time. Accordingly, she must amend the notice of family claim.
B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
[31] Given that the notice of trial has been served, Ms. Han requires leave of the court to amend the notice of family claim: Supreme Court Family Rule 8-1(1)(b)(i).
[32] A person seeking to amend a notice of family claim must show that there is a reasonable cause of action. This is a low threshold. What the applicant needs to establish is that, if the facts pleaded are proven at trial, they would support a reasonable claim. The applicant’s allegations of fact are assumed to be true for the purposes of this analysis. Cantelon v. Wall, 2015 BCSC 813, at para. 7-8.
[33] The applicant’s delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice to the responding party are also relevant factors. The ultimate consideration is whether it would be just and convenient to allow the amendment. Cantelon, at para. 6, citing Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. Dale Intermediaries Ltd. et al (1986), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 282.
C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
[34] Supreme Court Family Rules 3-1(1) and 4-1(1) require that a claim to spousal support be pleaded in a notice of family claim in Form F3. Section 2 of Form F3, “Spousal relationship history”, requires a spousal support claimant to check the boxes that apply to them, according to whether they are or have been married or are or have been in a marriage-like relationship. Where a claimant alleges a marriage-like relationship, Form F3 requires that they provide the date on which they began to live together with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship and, where applicable, the date on which they separated. Form F3 does not require a statement of the factual basis for the claim of spousal support.
[35] In this case, Ms. Han seeks to amend the notice of family claim to allege that she and Mr. Dorje began to live in a marriage-like relationship in or around January 2018, and separated in or around January 2019.
[36] An allegation that a person lived with a claimant in a marriage-like relationship is a conclusion of law, not an allegation of fact. Unlike the rules governing pleadings in civil actions, however, the Supreme Court Family Rules do not expressly require family law claimants to plead the material facts in support of conclusions of law.
[37] In other words, there is no express requirement in the Supreme Court Family Rules that Ms. Han plead the facts on which she relies for the allegation she and Mr. Dorje lived in a marriage-like relationship.
[38] Rule 4-6 authorizes a party to demand particulars, and then apply to the court for an order for further and better particulars, of a matter stated in a pleading. However, unless and until she is granted leave and files the proposed amended notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s allegation of a marriage-like relationship is not a matter stated in a pleading.
[39] Ms. Han filed an affidavit in support of her application to amend the notice of family claim. Normally, evidence would not be required or admissible on an application to amend a pleading. However, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the parties agreed I may look to Ms. Han’s affidavit and exhibits for the facts she pleads in support of the allegation of a marriage-like relationship.
[40] Because this is an application to amend - and Ms. Han’s allegations of fact are presumed to be true - I have not considered Mr. Dorje’s responding affidavit.
[41] Relying on affidavit evidence for an application to amend pleadings is less than ideal. It tends to merge and confuse the material facts with the evidence that would be relied on to prove those facts. In a number of places in her affidavit, for example, Ms. Han describes her feelings, impressions and understandings. A person’s hopes and intentions are not normally material facts unless they are mutual or reasonably held. The facts on which Ms. Han alleges she and Mr. Dorje formed a marriage-like relationship are more important for the present purposes than her belief they entered into a conjugal union.
[42] Somewhat unusually, in this case, almost all of the parties’ relevant communications were in writing. This makes it somewhat easier to separate the facts from the evidence; however, as stated above, it is difficult to understand the intentions and actions of a person from brief text messages.
[43] In my view, it would be a good practice for applicants who seek to amend their pleadings in family law cases to provide opposing counsel and the court with a schedule of the material facts on which they rely for the proposed amendment.
D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
[44] As Mr. Justice Myers observed in Mother 1 v. Solus Trust Company, 2019 BCSC 200, the concept of a marriage-like relationship is elastic and difficult to define. This elasticity is illustrated by the following passage from Yakiwchuk v. Oaks, 2003 SKQB 124, quoted by Myers J. at para. 133 of Mother 1:
[10] Spousal relationships are many and varied. Individuals in spousal relationships, whether they are married or not, structure their relationships differently. In some relationships there is a complete blending of finances and property - in others, spouses keep their property and finances totally separate and in still others one spouse may totally control those aspects of the relationship with the other spouse having little or no knowledge or input. For some couples, sexual relations are very important - for others, that aspect may take a back seat to companionship. Some spouses do not share the same bed. There may be a variety of reasons for this such as health or personal choice. Some people are affectionate and demonstrative. They show their feelings for their “spouse” by holding hands, touching and kissing in public. Other individuals are not demonstrative and do not engage in public displays of affection. Some “spouses” do everything together - others do nothing together. Some “spouses” vacation together and some spend their holidays apart. Some “spouses” have children - others do not. It is this variation in the way human beings structure their relationships that make the determination of when a “spousal relationship” exists difficult to determine. With married couples, the relationship is easy to establish. The marriage ceremony is a public declaration of their commitment and intent. Relationships outside marriage are much more difficult to ascertain. Rarely is there any type of “public” declaration of intent. Often people begin cohabiting with little forethought or planning. Their motivation is often nothing more than wanting to “be together”. Some individuals have chosen to enter relationships outside marriage because they did not want the legal obligations imposed by that status. Some individuals have simply given no thought as to how their relationship would operate. Often the date when the cohabitation actually began is blurred because people “ease into” situations, spending more and more time together. Agreements between people verifying when their relationship began and how it will operate often do not exist.
[45] In Mother 1, Mr. Justice Myers referred to a list of 22 factors grouped into seven categories, from Maldowich v. Penttinen, (1980), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), that have frequently been cited in this and other courts for the purpose of determining whether a relationship was marriage-like, at para. 134 of Mother 1:
1. Shelter:
(a) Did the parties live under the same roof?
(b) What were the sleeping arrangements?
(c) Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation?
2. Sexual and Personal Behaviour:
(a) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not?
(b) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other?
(c) What were their feelings toward each other?
(d) Did they communicate on a personal level?
(e) Did they eat their meals together?
(f) What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness?
(g) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?
3. Services:
What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to:
(a) preparation of meals;
(b) washing and mending clothes;
(c) shopping;
(d) household maintenance; and
(e) any other domestic services?
4. Social:
(a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities?
(b) What was the relationship and conduct of each of them toward members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties?
5. Societal:
What was the attitude and conduct of the community toward each of them and as a couple?
6. Support (economic):
(a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution toward the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)?
(b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property?
(c) Was there any special financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship?
7. Children:
What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?
[46] In Austin v. Goerz, 2007 BCCA 586, the Court of Appeal cautioned against a “checklist approach”; rather, a court should "holistically" examine all the relevant factors. Cases like Molodowich provide helpful indicators of the sorts of behaviour that society associates with a marital relationship, the Court of Appeal said; however, “the presence or absence of any particular factor cannot be determinative of whether a relationship is marriage-like” (para. 58).
[47] In Weber v. Leclerc, 2015 BCCA 492, the Court of Appeal again affirmed that there is no checklist of characteristics that will be found in all marriages and then concluded with respect to evidence of intentions:
[23] The parties’ intentions – particularly the expectation that the relationship will be of lengthy, indeterminate duration – may be of importance in determining whether a relationship is “marriage-like”. While the court will consider the evidence expressly describing the parties’ intentions during the relationship, it will also test that evidence by considering whether the objective evidence is consonant with those intentions.
[24] The question of whether a relationship is “marriage-like” will also typically depend on more than just their intentions. Objective evidence of the parties’ lifestyle and interactions will also provide direct guidance on the question of whether the relationship was “marriage-like”.
[48] Significantly for this case, the courts have looked to mutual intent in order to find a marriage-like relationship. See, for example, L.E. v. D.J., 2011 BCSC 671 and Buell v. Unger, 2011 BCSC 35; Davey Estate v. Gruyaert, 2005 CarswellBC 3456 at 13 and 35.
[49] In Mother 1, Myers J. concluded his analysis of the law with the following learned comment:
[143] Having canvassed the law relating to the nature of a marriage-like relationship, I will digress to point out the problematic nature of the concept. It may be apparent from the above that determining whether a marriage-like relationship exists sometimes seems like sand running through one's fingers. Simply put, a marriage-like relationship is akin to a marriage without the formality of a marriage. But as the cases mentioned above have noted, people treat their marriages differently and have different conceptions of what marriage entails.
[50] In short, the determination of whether the parties in this case lived in a marriage-like relationship is a fact-specific inquiry that a trial judge would need to make on a “holistic” basis, having regard to all of the evidence. While the trial judge may consider the various factors listed in the authorities, those factors would not be treated as a checklist and no single factor or category of factors would be treated as being decisive.
E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
[51] In this case, many of the Molodowich factors are missing:
a) The parties never lived under the same roof. They never slept together. They were never in the same place at the same time during the relationship. The last time they saw each other in person was in November 2017, before the relationship began.
b) The parties never had consensual sex. They did not hug, kiss or hold hands. With the exception of the alleged sexual assault, they never touched one another physically.
c) The parties expressed care and affection for one another, but they rarely shared personal information or interest in their lives outside of their direct topic of communication. They did not write about their families, their friends, their religious beliefs or their work.
d) They expressed concern and support for one another when the other felt unwell or experienced health issues, but they did not provide any care or assistance during illness or other problems.
e) They did not assist one another with domestic chores.
f) They did not share their relationship with their peers or their community. There is no allegation, for example, that Mr. Dorje told his fellow monks or any of his followers about the relationship. There is no allegation that Ms. Han told her friends or any co-workers. Indeed, there is no allegation that anyone, with the exception of Ms. Han’s mother, knew about the relationship. Although Mr. Dorje gave Ms. Han’s mother a gift, he never met the mother and he never spoke to her.
g) They did not intend to have a child together. The child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault. While Mr. Dorje expressed interest in “meeting” the child, he never followed up. He currently has no relationship with the child. There is no allegation he has sought access or parenting arrangements.
[52] The only Molodowich factor of any real relevance in this case is economic support. Mr. Dorje provided the funds with which Ms. Han purchased a condominium. Mr. Dorje initially wrote that he wanted to buy a property with the money, but, he wrote, “It’s the same thing if you buy [it]”.
[53] Mr. Dorje also provided a significant amount of money for Ms. Han’s postpartum care and the child’s first year of life.
[54] This financial support may have been primarily for the benefit of the child. Even the condominium, Ms. Han wrote, was primarily for the benefit of the child.
[55] However, in my view, a trial judge may attach a broader significance to the financial support from Mr. Dorje than child support alone. A trial judge may find that the money Mr. Dorje provided to Ms. Han at her request was an expression of his commitment to her in circumstances in which he could not commit physically. The money and the gifts may be seen by the trial judge to have been a form of down payment by Mr. Dorje on a promise of continued emotional and financial support for Ms. Han, or, in Mr. Dorje’s own words, “Taking care of her and you are my duty for life” (emphasis added).
[56] On the other hand, I find it difficult to attach any particular significance to the fact that Mr. Dorje agreed to provide funds for Ms. Han to purchase a wedding ring. It appears to me that Ms. Han demanded that Mr. Dorje buy her a wedding ring, not that the ring had any mutual meaning to the parties as a marriage symbol. But it is relevant, in my view, that Mr. Dorje provided $20,000 USD to Ms. Han for something she wanted that was of no benefit to the child.
[57] Further, Ms. Han alleges that the parties intended to live together. At a minimum, a trial judge may find that the discussions about where Ms. Han and the child would live reflected a mutual intention of the parties to see one another and spend time together when they could.
[58] Mr. Dorje argues that an intention to live together at some point in the future is not sufficient to show that an existing relationship was marriage-like. He argues that the question of whether the relationship was marriage-like requires more than just intentions, citing Weber, supra.
[59] In my view, the documentary evidence referred to above provides some objective evidence in this case that the parties progressed beyond mere intentions. As stated, the parties appear to have expressed genuine care and affection for one another. They appear to have discussed marriage, trust, honesty, finances, mutual obligations and acquiring family property. These are not matters one would expect Mr. Dorje to discuss with a friend or a follower, or even with the mother of his child, without a marriage-like element of the relationship.
[60] A trial judge may find on the facts alleged by Ms. Han that the parties loved one another and would have lived together, but were unable to do so because of Mr. Dorje’s religious duties and nomadic lifestyle.
[61] The question I raised in the introduction to these reasons is whether a relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world can be marriage-like.
[62] Notably, the definition of a spouse in the Family Law Act does not require that the parties live together, only that they live with another person in a marriage-like relationship.
[63] In Connor Estate, 2017 BCSC 978, Mr. Justice Kent found that a couple that maintained two entirely separate households and never lived under the same roof formed a marriage-like relationship. (Connor Estate was decided under the intestacy provisions of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 ("WESA"), but courts have relied on cases decided under WESA and the FLA interchangeably for their definitions of a spouse.) Mr. Justice Kent found:
[50] The evidence is overwhelming and I find as a fact that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved and cared deeply about each other, and that they had a loving and intimate relationship for over 20 years that was far more than mere friendship or even so-called "friendship with benefits". I accept Mr. Chambers' evidence that he would have liked to share a home with Ms. Connor after the separation from his wife, but was unable to do so because of Ms. Connor's hoarding illness. The evidence amply supports, and I find as a fact, that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved each other, were faithful to each other, communicated with each other almost every day when they were not together, considered themselves to be (and presented themselves to be) "husband and wife" and were accepted by all who knew them as a couple.
[64] Connor Estate may be distinguishable from this case because Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor were physically intimate for over 20 years, and presented themselves to the world as a married couple.
[65] Other decisions in which a marriage-like relationship has been found to exist despite the parties not living together have involved circumstances in which the couple lived under the same roof at previous points in the relationship, and the issue was whether they continued to be spouses after they took up separate residences: in Thompson v. Floyd, 2001 BCCA 78, the parties had lived together for a period of at least 11 years; in Roach v. Dutra, 2010 BCCA 264, the parties had lived together for approximately three years.
[66] However, as Mr. Justice Kent noted in Connor Estate:
[48] … [W]hile much guidance might be found in this case law, the simple fact is that no two cases are identical (and indeed they usually vary widely) and it is the assessment of evidence as a whole in this particular case which matters.
[67] Mr. Justice Kent concluded:
[53] Like human beings themselves, marriage-like relationships can come in many and various shapes. In this particular case, I have no doubt that such a relationship existed …
[68] As stated, Ms. Han’s claim is novel. It may even be weak. Almost all of the traditional factors are missing. The fact that Ms. Han and Mr. Dorje never lived under the same roof, never shared a bed and never even spent time together in person will militate against a finding they lived with one another in a marriage-like relationship. However, the traditional factors are not a mandatory check-list that confines the “elastic” concept of a marriage-like relationship. And if the COVID pandemic has taught us nothing else, it is that real relationships can form, blossom and end in virtual worlds.
[69] In my view, the merits of Ms. Han’s claim should be decided on the evidence. Subject to an overriding prejudice to Mr. Dorje, she should have leave to amend the notice of family claim. However, she should also provide meaningful particulars of the alleged marriage-like relationship.
F. Delay / Prejudice
[70] Ms. Han filed her notice of family claim on July 17, 2019. She brought this application to amend approximately one year and nine months after she filed the pleading, just over two months before the original trial date.
[71] Ms. Han’s delay was made all that more remarkable by her change in position from January 19, 2021, when she confirmed, through counsel, that she was not seeking spousal support in this case.
[72] Ms. Han gave notice of her intention to proceed with this application to Mr. Dorje on March 16, 2021. By the time the application was heard, the parties had conducted examinations for discovery without covering the issues that would arise from a claim of spousal support.
[73] Also, in April, Ms. Han produced additional documents, primarily text messages, that may be relevant to her claim of spousal support, but were undecipherable to counsel for Mr. Dorje, who does not read Mandarin.
[74] This application proceeded largely on documents selected and translated by counsel for Ms. Han. I was informed that Mandarin translations of the full materials would take 150 days.
[75] Understandably in the circumstances, Mr. Dorje argued that an amendment two months before trial would be neither just nor convenient. He argued that he would be prejudiced by an adjournment so as to allow Ms. Han to advance a late claim of spousal support.
[76] The circumstances changed on May 6, 2021, when Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to July 2022 and reset it for 25 days. Madam Justice Walkem noted that most of the witnesses live internationally and require translators. She also noted that paternity may be in issue, and Mr. Dorje may amend his pleadings to raise that issue. It seems clear that, altogether apart from the potential spousal support claim, the parties were not ready to proceed to trial on June 7, 2021.
[77] In my view, any remaining prejudice to Mr. Dorje is outweighed by the importance of having all of the issues between the parties decided on their merits.
[78] Ms. Han’s delay and changes of position on spousal support may be a matter to de addressed in a future order of costs; but they are not grounds on which to deny her leave to amend the notice of family claim.
CONCLUSION
[79] Ms. Han is granted leave to amend her notice of family claim in the form attached as Appendix A to the notice of application to include a claim for spousal support.
[80] Within 21 days, or such other deadline as the parties may agree, Ms. Han must provide particulars of the marriage-like relationship alleged in the amended notice of family claim.
[81] Ms. Han is entitled to costs of this application in the cause of the spousal support claim.
“Master Elwood”
同時也有2部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過24萬的網紅I'm Jonas,也在其Youtube影片中提到,台灣不需要核能和火力發電?3個使用更多再生能源的方法! | 3 Ways for Taiwan to get more renewable energy! 這部影片僅以個人看法說明,主要希望以輕鬆的方式帶大家初步了解再生能源,並透過真實案例及台電數據,提供以自身角度及經驗介紹給大眾。因電力系統非常...
「introduction to real analysis」的推薦目錄:
introduction to real analysis 在 Taipei Ethereum Meetup Facebook 的最讚貼文
📜 [專欄新文章] 隱私、區塊鏈與洋蔥路由
✍️ Juin Chiu
📥 歡迎投稿: https://medium.com/taipei-ethereum-meetup #徵技術分享文 #使用心得 #教學文 #medium
隱私為何重要?區塊鏈是匿名的嗎?洋蔥路由如何改進區塊鏈?
前言
自2008年區塊鏈以比特幣的面貌問世後,它便被視為 Web 3.0,並被期許能夠進一步為人類帶來金融與治理上的大躍進。區塊鏈或許會成為如同全球資訊網一般的基礎建設,如果我們已經開始注重個人於網路上的隱私,那麼我們更應該關心這項全新的技術是否能更好地保護它。
筆者將於本文中闡述隱私的重要性,接著進一步分析區塊鏈是否能夠保護用戶隱私,最後再簡介一個知名的匿名技術 — 洋蔥路由,並列舉幾個其用於改進區塊鏈(特別是以太坊)的相關提案。
特別感謝以太坊研究員 Chih-Cheng Liang 與民間高手敖烏協助校閱並給予回饋。
隱私的重要
網際網路(Internet)無疑是 20 世紀末最偉大的發明,它催生了全新的商業模式,也使得資訊能以位元的形式進行光速傳播,更使人類得以進行前所未有的大規模協作。而自從 1990 年全球資訊網(World Wide Web)的問世以來,網路已和現代文明生活密不可分。經過近 30 年的發展,人類在網路上製造了巨量的資料,這些資料會揭露使用者的隱私。透過一個人的資料,企業或者政府能夠比你自己更了解你。這促使用戶對隱私的愈發重視 — 正如同你不會允許第三者監聽你的電話,你也不希望有第三者監看你的瀏覽器搜尋歷史。
然而,如今的網路是徹底的中心化,中心化也意謂著過大的權力,有種種跡象顯示:網路正在成為政府當局監控人民的工具。例如:中國的淨網衛士[1]、美國的稜鏡計劃[2]等。那麼,政府應該監控人民嗎?其中一派的人認為平日不做虧心事,半夜不怕鬼敲門,這也就是常見的無所隱瞞論[3]:
我不在乎隱私權,因為我沒什麼好隱瞞的。
不過持有這類論點的人通常會被下面的說法反駁:
既然沒什麼好隱瞞的,那請把你的 Email 帳號密碼給我,讓我揭露其中我認為有趣的部分。
大多數正常人應該都不會接受這個提議。
隱私應當與言論自由一樣,是公民的基本權利。事實上,隱私是一個既廣且深的題目,它涉及了心理學、社會學、倫理學、人類學、資訊科學、密碼學等領域,這裡[4]有更多關於關於隱私的討論以及網路隱私工具的整理。
隱私與區塊鏈
有了網際網路後,接下來人類或許可以透過區塊鏈來建構出一個免除人性且完全仰賴自然法則(數學)運行的去中心化系統。在中心化世界中,我們需要免於政府監控的隱私;在去中心化世界中,我們仍然需要隱私以享有真正的平等。
正如同本文的前言所述:區塊鏈也許會成為如同全球資訊網一般的基礎建設,如果我們已經開始注重網路隱私,那麼我們更應該關心區塊鏈是否能更好地保護它。
隱私與匿名
Privacy vs Anonymity [5]
當我們論及隱私時,我們通常是指廣義的隱私:別人不知道你是誰,也不知道你在做什麼。事實上,隱私包含兩個概念:狹義的隱私(Privacy)與匿名(Anonymity)。狹義的隱私就是:別人知道你是誰,但不知道你在做什麼;匿名則是:別人知道你在做什麼,但不知道你是誰。
隱私與匿名對於隱私權來說都很重要,也可以透過不同的方法達成,接下來本文將聚焦於匿名的討論。另外,筆者在接下來的文章中所提及的隱私,指的皆是狹義的隱私。
網路的匿名
以當今的網路架構(TCP/IP 協定組)來說,匿名就是請求端(Requester)向響應端(Responder)請求資源時藏匿其本身的 IP 位址 — 響應端知道請求端在做什麼(索取的資源),但不知道是誰(IP 位置)在做。
IP 位置會揭露個人資訊。在台灣,只需透過 TWNIC 資料庫就可向台灣的網路服務供應商(Internet Service Provider, ISP),例如中華電信,取得某 IP 的註冊者身份及姓名/電話/地址之類的個資。
ISP 是網路基礎建設的部署者與營運者,理論上它能知道關於你在使用網路的所有資訊,只是這些資訊被法律保護起來,並透過公權力保證:政府只在必要時能夠取得這些資訊。萬一政府本身就是資訊的監控者呢?因此,我們需要有在 ISP 能窺知一切的情形下仍能維持匿名的方法。
區塊鏈能保護隱私、維持匿名嗎?
區塊鏈除了其本身運作的上層應用協定之外,還包含了下層網路協定。因此,這個問題可以分為應用層與網路層兩個部分來看 。
應用層
應用層負責實作狀態機複製(State Machine Replication),每個節點收到由共識背書的交易後,便可將交易內容作為轉換函數(Transition Function)於本機執行狀態轉換(State Transition)。
區塊鏈上的交易內容與狀態是應當被保護的隱私,一個保護隱私的直覺是:將所有的交易(Transaction)與狀態(State)加密。然而實際上,幾乎目前所有的主流區塊鏈,包含以太坊,其鏈上的交易及狀態皆為未加密的明文,用戶不僅可以查詢任一地址的交易歷史,還能知道任一地址呼叫某智能合約的次數與參數。也就是說,當今主流區塊鏈並未保護隱私。
雖然區塊鏈上的交易使用假名(Pseudonym),即地址(Address),但由於所有交易及狀態皆為明文,因此任何人都可以對所有假名進行分析並建構出用戶輪廓(User Profile)。更有研究[6]指出有些方法可以解析出假名與 IP 的映射關係(詳見下個段落),一旦 IP 與假名產生關聯,則用戶的每個行為都如同攤在陽光下一般赤裸。
區塊鏈的隱私問題很早便引起研究員的重視,因此目前已有諸多提供隱私保護的區塊鏈被提出,例如運用零知識證明(Zero-knowledge Proof)的 Zcash、運用環簽章(Ring Signature)的 Monero、 運用同態加密(Homomorphic Encryption)的 MimbleWimble 等等。區塊鏈隱私是一個大量涉及密碼學的艱澀主題,本文礙於篇幅不再深入探討,想深入鑽研的讀者不妨造訪台北以太坊社群專欄,其中有若干優質文章討論此一主題。
網路層
節點於應用層產生的共識訊息或交易訊息需透過網路層廣播(Broadcast)到其他節點。由於當今的主流區塊鏈節點皆未採取使網路維持匿名的技術,例如代理(Proxy)、虛擬私人網路(Virtual Private Network, VPN)或下文即將介紹的洋蔥路由(Onion Routing),因此區塊鏈無法使用戶維持匿名 — 因為對收到訊息的節點來說,它既知道廣播節點在做什麼(收到的訊息),也知道廣播節點是誰(訊息的 IP 位置)。
一個常見的問題是:使用假名難道不是匿名嗎?若能找到該假名與特定 IP 的映射關係的話就不是。一般來說,要找到與某假名對應的 IP 相當困難,幾可說是大海撈針,但是至少在下列兩種情況下可以找到對應關係:1. 該假名的用戶自願揭露真實 IP,例如在社群網站公開以太坊地址;2. 區塊鏈網路遭受去匿名化攻擊(Deanonymization Attack)[6]。
洩漏假名與 IP 的關聯會有什麼問題? 除了該 IP 的真實身份可能被揭露外,該區塊鏈節點亦可能遭受流量分析(Traffic Analysis)、服務阻斷(Denial of Service)或者審查(Censorship),可以說是有百害而無一利。
區塊鏈如何維持匿名?
其實上文已給出了能讓區塊鏈維持匿名的線索:現有匿名技術的應用。我們先來進一步理解區塊鏈網路層與深入探討網際網路協定的運作原理。
區塊鏈網路層的運作原理
P2P Overlay Network [7]
區塊鏈是一個對等網路(Peer-to-peer, P2P),而對等網路是一種覆蓋網路(Overlay Network),需建構於實體網路(Physical Network)之上。
覆蓋網路有兩種常見的通訊模式:一種是基於中繼的(Relay-based)通訊,在此通訊模式下的訊息皆有明確的接收端,因而節點會將不屬於自己的訊息中繼(Relay)給下一個可能是接收端的節點,分散式雜湊表(Distributed Hash Table, DHT)就是一種基於中繼的對等網路;另一種是基於廣播的(Broadcast-based)通訊,在此通訊模式下的訊息會被廣播給所有節點,節點會接收所有訊息,並且再度廣播至其他節點,直到網路中所有節點都收到該訊息,區塊鏈網路層就是一種基於廣播的對等網路。
覆蓋網路旨在將實體網路的通訊模式抽象化並於其上組成另一個拓墣(Topology)與路由機制(Routing Mechanism)。然而實際上,實體網路的通訊仍需遵循 TCP/IP 協定組的規範。那麼,實體網路又是如何運作的呢?
網際網路的運作原理
OSI Model vs TCP/IP Model
實體網路即是網際網路,它的發明可以追朔至 Robert Kahn 和 Vinton Cerf 於1974 年共同發表的原型[12],該原型經過數年的迭代後演變成我們當今使用的 TCP/IP 協定組[8]。全球資訊網(WWW)的發明更進一步驅使各國的 ISP 建立基於 TCP/IP 協定組的網路基礎建設。網際網路在多個國家經過近 30 年的部署後逐漸發展成今日的規模,成為邏輯上全球最巨大的單一網路。
1984 年,國際標準化組織(ISO)也發表了 OSI 概念模型[9],雖然較 TCP/IP 協定組晚了 10 年,但是 OSI 模型為日後可能出現的新協定提供了良好的理論框架,並且與 TCP/IP 協定組四層協定之間有映射關係,能夠很好地描述既存的 TCP/IP 協定組。
TCP/IP 協定組的各層各有不同的協定,且各層之間的運作細節是抽象的,究竟這樣一個龐大複雜的系統是如何運作的呢?
Packet Traveling [10][11]
事實上,封包的傳送正如同寄送包裹。例如筆者從台北寄一箱書到舊金山,假設每個包裹只能放若干本書,這箱書將分成多個包裹寄送,每個包裹需註明寄件地址、收件地址、收件者。寄送流程從郵局開始,一路經過台北物流中心 → 北台灣物流中心 → 基隆港 → 洛杉磯港 → 北加州物流中心 → 舊金山物流中心 → 收件者住處,最後由收件者收取。
這如同從 IP 位於台北的設備連上 IP 位於舊金山的網站,資料將被切分成多個固定大小的封包(Packet)之後個別帶上請求端 IP、響應端 IP 及其他必要資訊,接著便從最近的路由器(Router)出發,一路送至位於舊金山的伺服器(Server)。
每個包裹上的收件地址也如同 IP 位置,是全球唯一的位置識別。包裹的收件地址中除了包含收件者的所在城市、街道,還包含了門號,每個門號後都住著不同的收件者。門號正如同封包中後綴於 IP 的連接埠(Port),而住在不同門號的收件者也如同使用不同連接埠的應用程式(Application),分別在等待屬於他們的包裹。實際上,特定的連接埠會被分配給特定的應用程式,例如 Email 使用連接埠 25、HTTPS 使用連接埠 443 等等。
雖然包裹的最終目的地是收件地址,但包裹在運送途中也會有數個短程目的地 — 也就是各地的物流中心。包裹在各個物流中心之間移動,例如從北部物流中心到基隆港,再從基隆港到洛杉磯港,雖然其短程目的地會不斷改變,但其最終目的地會保持不變。
封包的最終目的地稱為端點(End),短程目的地稱為轉跳(Hop) — 也就是路由器(Router)。路由器能將封包從一個網段送至另一個網段,直到封包抵達其端點 IP 所在的網段為止。封包使用兩種定址方法:以 IP 表示端點的位置,而以 MAC 表示路由器的位置。這種從轉跳至轉跳(From Hop to Hop)的通訊是屬於 TCP/IP 協定組第一層:網路存取層(Network Access Layer)的協定。
那麼要如何決定包裹的下一個短程目的地呢?理論上,每個物流中心皆需選擇與最終目的地物理距離最短的物流中心作為下一個短期目的地。例如對寄到舊金山的包裹來說,位於基隆港的包裹下一站應該是洛杉磯港,而不是上海港。
封包則使用路由器中的路由表(Routing Table)來決定下一個轉跳位置,有數種不同的路由協定,例如 RIP / IGRP 等,可以進行路由表的更新。從端點到端點(From End to End)的通訊正是屬於 TCP/IP 協定組第二層:網際層(Internet Layer)的協定。
若一箱書需要分多次寄送,則可以採取不同的寄送策略。至於選擇何種寄送策略,則端看包裹內容物的屬性:
求穩定的策略:每個包裹都會有個序號,寄包裹前要先寫一封信通知收件者,收件者於收到信後需回信確認,寄件者收到確認信後“再”寫一次信告訴收件者「我收到了你的確認」,然後才能寄出包裹。收件者收到包裹後也需回確認信給寄件者,如果寄件者沒收到某序號包裹的回信,則會重寄該包裹。
求效率的策略:連續寄出所有的包裹,收件者不需回信確認。
橫跨多個封包的通訊是屬於 TCP/IP 協定組第三層:傳輸層(Transport Layer)的協定。這兩種策略也對應著傳輸層的兩個主要協定:TCP 與 UDP。TCP 注重穩定,它要求端點於傳送封包前必須先進行三向交握(Three-way Handshake),也就是確認彼此的確認,以建立穩固的連線,且端點在接收封包後也會回傳確認訊息,以確保沒有任何一個封包被遺失;反之,UDP 注重效率,它不要求端點在通訊前進行繁瑣的確認,而是直接傳送封包。
包裹本身亦可以裝載任何內容:這箱書可以是一套金庸全集,也可以是一年份的交換日記;同理,封包內的資料也可以是來自任何上層協定的內容,例如 HTTPS / SMTP / SSH / FTP 等等。這些上層協定都被歸類為 TCP/IP 協定組第四層:應用層(Application Layer)的協定。
維持匿名的技術
區塊鏈仰賴於實體網路傳送訊息,欲使區塊鏈網路層維持匿名,則需使實體網路維持匿名。那麼實體網路如何匿名呢? 若以寄包裹的例子來看,維持匿名,也就是不要讓收件者知道寄件地址。
一個直覺的思路是:先將包裹寄給某個中介(Intermediary),再由中介寄給收件者。如此收件者看到的寄件地址將會是中介的地址,而非原寄件者的地址 — 這也就是代理(Proxy)以及 VPN 等匿名技術所採取的作法。
不過這個作法的風險在於:寄件者必須選擇一個守口如瓶、值得信賴的中介。由於中介同時知道寄件地址與收件地址,倘若中介將寄件地址告知收件人,則寄件者的匿名性蕩然無存。
有沒有辦法可以避免使單一中介毀壞匿名性呢?一個中介不夠,那用兩個、三個、甚至多個呢?這便是洋蔥路由的基本思路。由於沒有任何一個中介同時知道寄件地址與收件地址,因此想破壞寄件者匿名性將變得更困難。
洋蔥路由與 Tor
洋蔥路由(Onion Routing)最初是為了保護美國政府情報通訊而開發的協定,後來卻因為其能幫助平民抵抗政府監控而變得世界聞名。
1997 年,Michael G. Reed、Paul F. Syverson 和 David M. Goldschlag 於美國海軍研究實驗室首先發明了洋蔥路由[13],而 Roger Dingledine 和 Nick Mathewson 於美國國防高等研究計劃署(DARPA)緊接著開始著手開發 Tor,第一版 Tor 於 2003 年釋出[14]。2004 年,美國海軍研究實驗室以自由軟體授權條款開放了 Tor 原始碼。此後,Tor 開始接受電子前哨基金會(Electronic Frontier Foundation)的資助;2006年,非營利組織「Tor 專案小組」(The Tor Project)成立,負責維護 Tor 直至今日。
Tor [15]是洋蔥路由的實作,它除了改進原始設計中的缺陷,例如線路(Circuit)的建立機制,也加入若干原始設計中沒有的部分,例如目錄伺服器(Directory Server)與洋蔥服務(Onion Service),使系統更強健且具有更高的匿名性。
Tor 自 2004 年上線至今已有超過 7000 個由志願者部署的節點,已然是一個強大的匿名工具。然而這也使其成為雙面刃:一方面它可以幫助吹哨者揭露不法、對抗監控;另一方面它也助長了販毒、走私等犯罪活動。但不論如何,其技術本身的精巧,才是本文所關注的重點。
Tor 的運作原理
Tor Overview [16]
Tor 是基於中繼的(Relay-based)覆蓋網路。Tor 的基本思路是:利用多個節點轉送封包,並且透過密碼學保證每個節點僅有局部資訊,沒有全局資訊,例如:每個節點皆無法同時得知請求端與響應端的 IP,也無法解析線路的完整組成。
Tor 節點也稱為洋蔥路由器(Onion Router),封包皆需透過由節點組成的線路(Circuit)傳送。要注意的是,Tor 線路僅是覆蓋網路中的路徑,並非實體網路的線路。每條線路皆由 3 個節點組成,請求端首先會與 3 個節點建立線路並分別與每個節點交換線路密鑰(Circuit Key)。
請求端會使用其擁有的 3 組線路密鑰對每個送出的封包進行 3 層加密,且最內層密文需用出口節點的密鑰、最外層密文需用入口節點的密鑰,如此才能確保線路上的節點都只能解開封包中屬於該節點的密文。被加密後的封包被稱為洋蔥,因其如洋蔥般可以被一層一層剝開,這就是洋蔥路由這個名稱的由來。
封包經過線路抵達出口節點後,便會由出口節點送往真正的響應端。同樣的線路也會被用於由響應端回傳的封包,只是這一次節點會將每個送來的封包加密後再回傳給上一個節點,如此請求端收到的封包就會仍是一顆多層加密的洋蔥。
那麼,請求端該選擇哪些節點來組成線路呢?Tor 引入了目錄伺服器(Directory Server)此一設計。目錄伺服器會列出 Tor 網路中所有可用的節點[17],請求端可以透過目錄伺服器選擇可用的洋蔥路由器以建立線路。目前 Tor 網路中有 9 個分別由不同組織維護的目錄,中心化的程度相當高,這也成為 Tor 安全上的隱憂。
Tor 線路的建立機制
Tor Circuit Construction [18]
Tor 是如何建立線路的呢?如上圖所示,Tor 運用伸縮(Telescoping)的策略來建立線路,從第一個節點開始,逐次推進到第三個節點。首先,請求端與第一個節點進行交握(Handshake)並使用橢圓曲線迪菲 — 赫爾曼密鑰交換(Elliptic Curve Diffie–Hellman key Exchange, ECDH)協定來進行線路密鑰的交換。
為了維持匿名,請求端接著再透過第一個節點向第二個節點交握。與第二個節點交換密鑰後,請求端再透過第一、二個節點向第三個節點交握與交換密鑰,如此慢慢地延伸線路直至其完全建立。線路建立後,請求端便能透過線路與響應端進行 TCP 連線,若順利連接,便可以開始透過線路傳送封包。
洋蔥服務
Clearnet, Deepweb and Darknet [21]
洋蔥服務(Onion Service)/ 隱藏服務(Hidden Service)是暗網(Darknet)的一部分,是一種必須使用特殊軟體,例如 Tor,才能造訪的服務;與暗網相對的是明網(Clearnet),表示可以被搜尋引擎索引的各種服務;深網(Deep Web)則是指未被索引的服務,這些服務不需要特殊軟體也能造訪,與暗網不同。
當透過 Tor 使用洋蔥服務時,請求端與響應端都將不會知道彼此的 IP,只有被響應端選定的節點:介紹點(Introduction Point)會引領請求端至另一個節點:會面點(Rendezvous Point),兩端再分別與會面點建立線路以進行通訊。也就是說,請求端的封包必須經過 6 個節點的轉送才能送往響應端,而所有的資料也會採取端對端加密(End-to-end Encryption),安全強度非常高。
洋蔥服務及暗網是一個令人興奮的主題,礙於篇幅,筆者將另撰文闡述。
混合網路、大蒜路由與洋蔥路由
這裡再接著介紹兩個與洋蔥路由系出同源的匿名技術:混合網路與大蒜路由。
Mix Network Overview [22]
混合網路(Mix Network)早在 1981 年就由 David Chaum 發明出來了[23],可以說是匿名技術的始祖。
洋蔥路由的安全性奠基於「攻擊者無法獲得全局資訊」的假設[24],然而一旦有攻擊者具有監控多個 ISP 流量的能力,則攻擊者仍然可以獲知線路的組成,並對其進行流量分析;混合網路則不僅會混合線路節點,還會混合來自不同節點的訊息,就算攻擊者可以監控全球 ISP 的流量,混合網路也能保證維持匿名性。
然而高安全性的代價就是高延遲(Latency),這導致混合網路無法被大規模應用,或許洋蔥路由的設計是一種為了實現低延遲的妥協。
Garlic Routing Overview [25]
混合網路啟發了洋蔥路由,洋蔥路由也啟發了大蒜路由。2003年上線的 I2P(Invisible Internet Project)便是基於大蒜路由(Garlic Routing)的開源軟體,可以視為是去中心化版的 Tor。幾乎所有大蒜路由中的組件,在洋蔥路由中都有對應的概念:例如大蒜路由的隧道(Tunnel)即是洋蔥路由的線路;I2P 的網路資料庫(NetDB)即是 Tor 的目錄;I2P中的匿名服務(Eepsite)即是 Tor 的洋蔥服務。
不過,大蒜路由也有其創新之處:它允許多個封包共用隧道以節省建立隧道的成本,且其使用的網路資料庫實際上是一個分散式雜湊表(DHT),這使 I2P 的運作徹底去中心化。若想進一步理解 DHT 的運作原理,可以參考筆者之前所撰寫的文章:
連Ethereum都在用!用一個例子徹底理解DHT
I2P 最大的詬病就是連線速度太慢,一個缺乏激勵的去中心化網路恐怕很難吸引足夠的節點願意持續貢獻頻寬與電費。
區塊鏈與洋蔥路由
那麼,基於實體網路的區塊鏈能不能使用洋蔥路由或大蒜路由/混合網路/其他技術,以維持節點的匿名?答案是肯定的。事實上,目前已經出現數個專案與提案:
全新的專案
Dusk:實作大蒜路由的區塊鏈[32],不過官方已宣布因其影響網路效能而暫停開發此功能。
cMix:透過預先計算(Precomputation)以實現低延遲的混合網路[33],是混合網路發明者 David Chaum 近期的研究,值得期待。
Loki:結合 Monero 與 Tor/I2P 的區塊鏈 [34],並使用代幣激勵節點貢獻頻寬與電力,由其白皮書可以看出發明者對於匿名技術的熱愛與信仰。
於主流區塊鏈的提案
比特幣:全世界第一條區塊鏈,將於其網路使用一個不同於洋蔥路由的匿名技術:Dandelion++[30][31],該匿名技術因其訊息傳播路徑的形狀類似浦公英而得其名。
閃電網路(Lightning Network):知名的比特幣第二層方案,將於其網路內實作洋蔥路由[27]。
Monero:使用環簽章保護用戶隱私的區塊鏈,將於其網路內實作大蒜路由,已開發出 Kovri[28] 並成為 I2P 官方認可的客戶端之一[29]。
於以太坊的提案
2018 年 12 月,Mustafa Al-Bassam 於以太坊官方研究論壇提議利用洋蔥路由改進輕節點之資料可得性(Light Client Data Availability)[36]。若讀者想了解更多關於以太坊輕節點的研究,可以參考台北以太坊社群專欄的這篇文章。資料可得性是輕節點實現的關鍵,而這之中更關鍵的是:如何向第三方證明全節點的資料可得性?由於這個提案巧妙地運用了洋蔥路由的特性,因此在今年 7 月在另一則討論中,Vitalik 亦強烈建議應儘速使洋蔥路由成為以太坊的標準[35]。
在這個提案中,輕節點需建立洋蔥路由線路,然而線路節點並非由目錄中挑選,而是由前一個節點的可驗證隨機函數(Verifiable Random Function, VRF)決定。例如線路中的第二個節點需由第一個節點的 VRF 決定。線路建立後,出口節點便可以接著向全節點請求特定的可驗證資料。由於輕節點在過程中維持匿名,因此可以防止全節點對輕節點的審查(Censoring)。取得可驗證資料後,其便與 VRF 證明沿著原線路傳回輕節點,輕節點再將可驗證資料與 VRF 證明提交至合約由第三方驗證。若第三方驗證正確,則資料可得性得證。
結語
隱私與匿名是自由的最後一道防線,我們應該盡可能地捍衛它,不論是透過本文介紹的匿名技術或者其他方式。然而,一個能保護隱私與維持匿名的區塊鏈是否能實現真正的去中心化?這是一個值得深思的問題。
本文也是筆者研究區塊鏈至今跨度最廣的一篇文章,希望讀者能如我一樣享受這段令人驚奇又興奮的探索旅程。
參考資料
[1] Jingwang Weishi, Wikipedia
[2] PRISM, Wikipedia
[3] privacytools.io
[4] Nothing-to-hide Argument, Wikipedia
[5] Anonymity vs Privacy vs Security
[6] Deanonymisation of Clients in Bitcoin P2P Network, Alex Biryukov, Dmitry Khovratovich, Ivan Pustogarov, 2014
[7] Example: P2P system topology
[8] Internet protocol suite, Wikipedia
[9] OSI model, Wikipedia
[10] Packet Traveling: OSI Model
[11] Packet Traveling — How Packets Move Through a Network
[12] A Protocol for Packet Network Intercommunication, VINTON G. CERF, ROBERT E. KAHN, 1974
[13] Anonymous Connections and Onion Routing, Michael G. Reed, Paul F. Syverson, and David M. Goldschlag, 1998
[14] Tor: The Second-Generation Onion Router, Roger Dingledine, Nick Mathewson, Paul Syverson, 2004
[15] Tor, Wikipedia
[16] What actually is the Darknet?
[17] Tor Network Status
[18] Inside Job: Applying Traffic Analysis to Measure Tor from Within, Rob Jansen, Marc Juarez, Rafa Galvez, Tariq Elahi, Claudia Diaz, 2018
[19] How Does Tor Really Work? The Definitive Visual Guide (2019)
[20] Tor Circuit Construction via Telescoping
[21] The DarkNet and its role in online piracy
[22] Mix network, Wikipedia
[23] Untraceable Electronic Mail, Return Addresses, and Digital Pseudonyms, David Chaum, 1981
[24] The differences between onion routing and mix networks
[25] Monitoring the I2P network, Juan Pablo Timpanaro, Isabelle Chrisment, Olivier Festor, 2011
[26] I2P Data Communication System, Bassam Zantout, Ramzi A. Haraty, 2002
[27] BOLT #4: Onion Routing Protocol
[28] Kovri
[29] Alternative I2P clients
[30] Bitcoin BIP-0156
[31] Dandelion++: Lightweight Cryptocurrency Networking with Formal Anonymity Guarantees, Giulia Fanti, Shaileshh Bojja Venkatakrishnan, Surya Bakshi, Bradley Denby, Shruti Bhargava, Andrew Miller, Pramod Viswanath, 2018
[32] The Dusk Network Whitepaper, Toghrul Maharramov, Dmitry Khovratovich, Emanuele Francioni, Fulvio Venturelli, 2019
[33] cMix: Mixing with Minimal Real-Time Asymmetric Cryptographic Operations, David Chaum, Debajyoti Das, Farid Javani, Aniket Kate, Anna Krasnova, Joeri De Ruiter, Alan T. Sherman, 2017
[34] Loki: Private transactions, decentralised communication, Kee Jefferys, Simon Harman, Johnathan Ross, Paul McLean, 2018
[35] Open Research Questions For Phases 0 to 2
[36] Towards on-chain non-interactive data availability proofs
隱私、區塊鏈與洋蔥路由 was originally published in Taipei Ethereum Meetup on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
👏 歡迎轉載分享鼓掌
introduction to real analysis 在 I'm Jonas Youtube 的精選貼文
台灣不需要核能和火力發電?3個使用更多再生能源的方法! | 3 Ways for Taiwan to get more renewable energy!
這部影片僅以個人看法說明,主要希望以輕鬆的方式帶大家初步了解再生能源,並透過真實案例及台電數據,提供以自身角度及經驗介紹給大眾。因電力系統非常複雜需具專業性,相關主題之後會更深入了解,不具任何立場喔。
Thank you so much for watching todays video! All my data is based on the demand and production on 27th May, which was a hot and sunny day. This video is meant to be entertainment and an introduction to renewable energy inspired by a real case scenario. Power systems are very complex, so to make any suggestion for the future, a much deeper analysis is needed.
References:
Electricity demand of Taiwan (27th May):
https://www.taipower.com.tw/en/page.aspx?mid=4484
Solar PV output in Taiwan (27th May):
https://www.taipower.com.tw/en/page.aspx?mid=4484&cid=2832&cchk=30760122-6d57-43cf-bcb8-0caba69e75a7
*PV output for 20GW and 40GW is also estimated based on this generation curve
20% Renewable goal by 2025:
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3880997
Coal, Nuclear, Natural Gas Capacity in Taiwan:
https://www.taipower.com.tw/en/page.aspx?mid=4484&cid=2834&cchk=20432baa-1f39-4018-aed8-7b33b02f942e
Hydro, wind, diesel and oil estimate based on this:
https://www.taipower.com.tw/en/page.aspx?mid=4484&cid=2832&cchk=30760122-6d57-43cf-bcb8-0caba69e75a7
Extra capacity in the grid:
https://www.taipower.com.tw/en/page.aspx?mid=4484&cid=2833&cchk=083f3aa1-77b0-43cf-9e4f-877a8a484c39
Comparison of flexibility between Coal and Natural Gas:
https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S1364032117309206?token=7E89009F522E8EF9097CD7FC2DE4F49EF4A648E190B88781939C73A1197B48C989B0B4A4CCBE439C60AF2CDBF141668A&originRegion=us-east-1&originCreation=20210603055324
Comparison of emission for Coal and Natural Gas:
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/natural-gas-and-the-environment.php
Subscribe me:
http://bit.ly/1nTklXP
合作邀約請寫信到:
imjonastw@gmail.com
Thank you for watching! The more views/likes/shares the more time I can devote into making good videos. Thank you all!
Youtube: http://bit.ly/1nTklXP
Instagram: www.instagram.com/jonas.tjd
Contact: imjonastw@gmail.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/iamjonast/
![post-title](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZjynPCT6I_E/hqdefault.jpg)
introduction to real analysis 在 Rayner Teo Youtube 的最佳解答
Discover the secrets of Forex trading and how you can be a profitable Forex trader-even if you have no trading experience.
In this Forex trading course for beginners, you'll learn:
0:00 - Introduction
01:00 - What is Forex trading
08:15 - Currency pair explained
14:05 - What is a pip
19:00 - The truth about leverage
23:50 - What is pip value and how to calculate it
30:44 - How to manage your risk like a professional trader
40:18 - Types of Forex orders
51:05 - The spread explained
58:58 - Types of Forex traders
1:01:45 - Technical analysis and market structure
1:13:36 - Area of value and support and resistance
1:21:48 - Entry triggers and candlestick patterns
1:36:10 - Real trading examples
Ready?
Then go watch it right now.
And if you want to level up your trading, then get your copy of Price Action Trading Secrets here... https://priceactiontradingsecrets.com/
![post-title](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/mEyuQVy3OHc/hqdefault.jpg)