Re: IETF Chair

[Larry Masinter <[e-mail]>]

This conversation seems to be about 'good ideas the IETF has ignored for
various (mainly stupid)  reasons."  But I can't tell what you expect the
IETF Chair to do?




On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 4:41 PM Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 07:00:49PM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 5:01 PM Michael Thomas <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On 10/14/20 12:16 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> > > >> But 90% of the efforts of the academy and 99% of those of commerce
> are
> > > focused on
> > > >> the Blockchain, an integrity technology.
> > > > It's worse than that, because not only is most of the effort placed
> on
> > > > blockchain technology, blockchain technology is also being pushed as
> > > > the answer to *everything*.  Blockchain technology has a place, but
> it
> > > > doesn't make sense everywhere, and when one says, "Wait, let's take a
> > > > step back and look at what we really *need* blockchains for, and
> where
> > > > we don't," then one seems a heretic... or at best, quaintly naïve.
> > >
> > > What place might that be? I really can't think of any. Maybe you can
> use
> > > it for buying and selling tulips.
> > >
> > > Mike
> >
> >
> > Every day thousands of courts are presented with digital evidence, pretty
> > much all of which should be excluded because it is far too easy to tamper
> > with. I have spent days engaged in pointless arguments over
> > admissibility that could be avoided entirely.
> >
> > Every piece of digital evidence that is collected should be time stamped
> at
> > the time it is collected and enrolled in a notary service using a one way
> > sequence. At regular intervals, the notary offering this service should
> > cross notarize with other notary services, thus making it impossible for
> > any one notary to defect without detection unless every other notary
> > colludes. And NIST and every other national lab should run a national
> cross
> > notary service whose probity would be automatically considered valid by
> the
> > courts of that country.
> >
> > That is not the sort of construct I see being built in blockchain land.
> > Noooo, much more fun selling virtual cowrie shells. But it is exactly the
> > sort of infrastructure we need.
>
> Yup, that would be swell.  Too bad I don't have a budget to help make it
> happen.
>
> -Ben
>
>

-- 
--
https://LarryMasinter.net <http://larry.masinter.net>