Data integrity and consensuses with blockchain

1. A method, comprising:

in a group that comprises a first user/contributor and a second user/contributor that are each operable to receive and evaluate proposed distributed ledger entries from the other:

receiving, by the first user/contributor from the second user/contributor, a proposed entry for addition to a distributed ledger, where the distributed ledger comprises a whitelist and a blacklist;

determining, by a credibility engine, a credibility score for the second user/contributor;

inputting the credibility score into the rate limiter engine and determining a rate limiter value;

assigning, by the first user/contributor, the rate limiter value for the second user/contributor;

comparing, by the first user/contributor, the credibility score and rate limiter value of the second user/contributor with respective credibility score and rate limiter value thresholds;

determining, by the first user/contributor, that the credibility score and rate limiter value of the second user/contributor meet or exceed the respective credibility score and rate limiter value thresholds;

based on the determining, submitting, by the first user/contributor, the proposed entry to either the whitelist or the blacklist of the distributed ledger; and

updating the credibility score, by the credibility engine, and the rate limiter value, by the rate limiter engine, based on where the proposed entry is located in the distributed ledger.

2. The method as recited in claim 1 , wherein the proposed entry is identified by the second user/contributor as either a whitelist candidate or a blacklist candidate.

3. The method as recited in claim 1 , wherein the method is performed by a verification system that includes a credibility score engine and a rate limiter engine.

4. The method as recited in claim 1 , wherein the credibility score is based in part on any prior transactions involving an entity.

5. The method as recited in claim 1 , wherein the submitting of the proposed entry to either the whitelist or the blacklist of the distributed ledger indicates a consensus of the group that the proposed entry is permitted to be listed in the distributed ledger.

6. The method as recited in claim 1 , wherein the rate limiter value specifies a maximum number of submissions that the entity is permitted to make within a time period of a particular length.

7. The method as recited in claim 1 , further comprising:

receiving, by a member of the group, from another member of the group, another proposed entry for the distributed ledger;

determining, by the member of the group, that a credibility score and a rate limiter value associated with the another member of the group do not meet respective credibility score and rate limiter value thresholds for the another entity; and

refusing the another proposed entry to the distributed ledger, and the refusing the another proposed entry indicates a consensus of the group that the proposed entry is not permitted to be listed in the distributed ledger.

8. The method as recited in claim 7 , further comprising adjusting the credibility score and/or the rate limiter value of the another member of the group based upon the determination that the credibility score and rate limiter value of the another member of the group do not meet the respective credibility score and rate limiter value thresholds for the another member of the group.

9. The method as recited in claim 1 , further comprising adjusting the credibility score and/or the rate limiter value based upon the determination that the credibility score and rate limiter value meet or exceed the respective credibility score and rate limiter value thresholds.

10. The method as recited in claim 1 , wherein the proposed entry identifies one of: a file; a website address; malware; or, ransomware.

11. A non-transitory storage medium having stored therein instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, perform operations comprising:

receiving, by the first user/contributor from the second user/contributor, a proposed entry for addition to a distributed ledger, where the distributed ledger comprises a whitelist and a blacklist;

determining, by a credibility engine, a credibility score for the second user/contributor;

inputting the credibility score into the rate limiter engine and determining a rate limiter value;

assigning, by the first user/contributor, the rate limiter value for the second user/contributor;

comparing, by the first user/contributor, the credibility score and rate limiter value of the second user/contributor with respective credibility score and rate limiter value thresholds;

determining, by the first user/contributor, that the credibility score and rate limiter value of the second user/contributor meet or exceed the respective credibility score and rate limiter value thresholds;

based on the determining, submitting, by the first user/contributor, the proposed entry to either the whitelist or the blacklist of the distributed ledger; and

updating the credibility score, by the credibility engine, and the rate limiter value, by the rate limiter engine, based on where the proposed entry is located in the distributed ledger.

12. The non-transitory storage medium as recited in claim 11 , wherein the proposed entry is identified by the second user/contributor as either a whitelist candidate or a blacklist candidate.

13. The non-transitory storage medium as recited in claim 11 , wherein the operations are performed by a verification system that includes a credibility score engine and a rate limiter engine.

14. The non-transitory storage medium as recited in claim 11 , wherein the credibility score is based in part on any prior transactions involving an entity.

15. The non-transitory storage medium as recited in claim 11 , wherein the submitting of the proposed entry to either the whitelist or the blacklist of the distributed ledger indicates a consensus of the group that the proposed entry is permitted to be listed in the distributed ledger.

16. The non-transitory storage medium as recited in claim 11 , wherein the rate limiter value specifies a maximum number of submissions that the entity is permitted to make within a time period of a particular length.

17. The non-transitory storage medium as recited in claim 11 , wherein the operations further comprise:

receiving, by a member of the group, from another member of the group, another proposed entry for the distributed ledger;

determining, by the member of the group, that a credibility score and a rate limiter value associated with the another member of the group do not meet respective credibility score and rate limiter value thresholds for the another entity; and

refusing the another proposed entry to the distributed ledger, and the refusing the another proposed entry indicates a consensus of the group that the proposed entry is not permitted to be listed in the distributed ledger.

18. The non-transitory storage medium as recited in claim 17 , further comprising adjusting the credibility score and/or the rate limiter value of the another member of the group based upon the determination that the credibility score and rate limiter value of the another member of the group do not meet the respective credibility score and rate limiter value thresholds for the another member of the group.

19. The non-transitory storage medium as recited in claim 11 , wherein the operations further comprise adjusting the credibility score and/or the rate limiter value based upon the determination that the credibility score and rate limiter value meet or exceed the respective credibility score and rate limiter value thresholds.

20. The non-transitory storage medium as recited in claim 11 , wherein the proposed entry identifies one of: a file; a website address; malware; or, ransomware.