Re: [Blockchain-interop] Thoughts on unique DLT numbering/identification

Miguel Correia <> Sat, 10 October 2020 12:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37B0B3A149D for <>; Sat, 10 Oct 2020 05:41:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xCWPK19Hq5m6 for <>; Sat, 10 Oct 2020 05:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:690:2100:1::15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81CC63A149C for <>; Sat, 10 Oct 2020 05:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C50F86000412 for <>; Sat, 10 Oct 2020 13:40:54 +0100 (WEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.11.0 (20160426) (Debian) at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10025) with LMTP id rZWBEfO20kV2 for <>; Sat, 10 Oct 2020 13:40:51 +0100 (WEST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFA186000419 for <>; Sat, 10 Oct 2020 13:40:49 +0100 (WEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1602333651; bh=rEouKq43RMT78QEEwWdQIX1KUSiVvWGYRGpgZYMHX6o=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:To:In-Reply-To; b=Q0o+2EOOVAGJJ3Wg5KZ14hEzBJ1/Lzx6eUpERaJZ/1pLCv6pe3iSTsCOd4l0xhZcN WpTkatZHUT5cXzMaXTQGPkq34ezd32l/uU5ckSPO+uAhumPeGH77m5zz1eIprPT/Hh GZAqY9EuURPosWOBkTn8Q6lK7Qyv/lVEiLkG1g2U=
Received: from [IPv6:2001:818:d859:2000:5153:74e6:b554:3eeb] (unknown [IPv6:2001:818:d859:2000:5153:74e6:b554:3eeb]) (Authenticated sender: ist130598) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A167B36008D for <>; Sat, 10 Oct 2020 13:40:48 +0100 (WEST)
From: Miguel Correia <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2020 13:40:47 +0100
References: <>
To: "" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Blockchain-interop] Thoughts on unique DLT numbering/identification
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Blockchain Gateway Interoperability Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2020 12:41:01 -0000

Hi Thomas,

This is a very interesting topic.

I think today we distinguish blockchains in two ways:

- the client software we use is associated to a single blockchain and the identification is implicit in the software; or the client software is associated to more than one  blockchain and the software provides us that distinction (e.g., showing we if we are using blockchain bc1 or bc2)

- by IP address / port of (a subset of) the nodes 

I think currently this satisfies most needs, but I also think some kind of ID scheme will be needed in the future. For example, organizations may start using many instances of the same permissioned blockchain software (e.g., Fabric), with nodes in several other organizations. Using IPs/ports might be possible but surely not practical.

One solution would be to continue using IP addresses and use DNS to register names for blockchains. However, for consortium blockchains that involve several organizations, this creates the problem of who shall register the name.

Another aspect is that IDs/names are often used to help finding a resource. Is that interesting in this context?


> On 9 Oct 2020, at 19:41, Thomas Hardjono <> wrote:
> One of the gaps or issues with blockchain systems or DLTs today is the lack of a globally unique and uniform numbering (identification) scheme for each system.
> For example, if a community in one country is running its own network of nodes (using a version of Hyperledger or Quorum), and a different community in another country is using the same software-stack on a different set of nodes, there is no way for a machine today (e.g. client) to distinguish between these communities (networks).
> There has been some proposals for numbering/identification of the entities (e.g. VASP number), but this does not cover the network as a whole.
> Do we need something like ARIN registry to allocate AS-numbers for blockchain networks.
> Thoughts anyone?
> -- thomas --
> -- 
> Blockchain-interop mailing list