Re: IETF Chair

[Ben Laurie <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 00:01, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>
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.
>

This is effectively what Certificate Transparency does. And yes, the same
ideas should be used everywhere.


>
>
> The Mesh will (eventually) provide that capability once I have the Mesh
> Naming System running. The objective is to provide the user with the
> maximal degree of autonomy possible. So while most Mesh users are going to
> outsource management of their Mesh to a service provider, I want to keep
> the closest possible control over that provider, ensure that it is
> accountable and provide for switching costs. One way sequence technology
> provides the basis for accountability and allows a naming infrastructure
> model that allows names to be provided for $0.10 for a life-long name
> rather than renting them at $10/year.
>
> Take away the stupidity, the criminality and the ecological disaster and
> blockchain is built on a very powerful idea.
>