Re: [Ilc] [saag] Distributed ledgers and control
David Mazieres <dm-list-ietf-ilc@scs.stanford.edu> Wed, 29 March 2017 11:43 UTC
Return-Path: <dm-list-ietf-ilc@scs.stanford.edu>
X-Original-To: ilc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ilc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F25651296AE; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 04:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LbuxME4BK_04; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 04:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from market.scs.stanford.edu (www.scs.stanford.edu [IPv6:2001:470:806d:1::9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56CA51296AD; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 04:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from market.scs.stanford.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by market.scs.stanford.edu (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id v2TBh8A2061932; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 04:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from dm@localhost) by market.scs.stanford.edu (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id v2TBh8Jb029362; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 04:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Mazieres <dm-list-ietf-ilc@scs.stanford.edu>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "saag@ietf.org" <saag@ietf.org>
Cc: ilc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <7A8F415A-3BE0-46D4-80FF-B8DB50634B94@vpnc.org>
References: <7A8F415A-3BE0-46D4-80FF-B8DB50634B94@vpnc.org>
Reply-To: David Mazieres expires 2017-06-27 PDT <mazieres-7kjfd7jny6nqhpqvs8psccye9s@temporary-address.scs.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 04:43:08 -0700
Message-ID: <87inmsxq9f.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ilc/zluP7wdzgmHDQBOIwhoQtYHnfVc>
Subject: Re: [Ilc] [saag] Distributed ledgers and control
X-BeenThere: ilc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of mechanisms and applications for Internet-level consensus." <ilc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ilc>, <mailto:ilc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ilc/>
List-Post: <mailto:ilc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ilc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ilc>, <mailto:ilc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:43:12 -0000
Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> writes: > Greetings. A few folks have recently been discussing which ledger and > ledger-esque protocols should be used with upcoming IETF protocols. It > is easy to conflate the governance of the ledger with its uses. A good > article that helps make the distinction is: > > https://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/blog/the-blockchain-paradox-why-distributed-ledger-technologies-may-do-little-to-transform-the-economy/ First, a plug for the IETF Internet-level consensus (ILC) mailing list (CCed), which is a good place to discuss these issues: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ilc as well as a reminder of the talk I'll be giving at the Thursday saag meeting: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag/current/msg07651.html The article you forwarded seems like a reaction to the notion that blockchain technologies can somehow supplant or circumvent regulation. That's a common view within the cryptocurrency community, but a highly controversial one outside. Nonetheless, there are different applications for some of the consensus technologies underlying blockchain systems that don't undermine governance and may be of interest to the IETF. In particular, given a mechanism for Internet-level consensus, it becomes possible to execute atomic transactions across parties that don't know or trust one another. Far from undermining regulation, this actually makes it practical to bridge various regulatory jurisdictions (e.g., create a total order across all certificates issued by all CAs, or atomically perform two funds transfers in two different countries). Furthermore, the notion of a blockchain-esque public log can be leveraged for various forms of transparency. For instance, last year there was a controversy in which Apple claimed to refuse an FBI request to sign a special compromised iPhone bootloader. Unfortunately, for all we know, Apple may have signed the software after all while claiming not to for the PR benefit. That they probably didn't yields the worst of both worlds--angering the FBI and still spooking potential customers. Requiring firmware updates to be published in a public log would allow the public to verify whether or not such activity is happening. David
- Re: [Ilc] [saag] Distributed ledgers and control David Mazieres
- Re: [Ilc] [saag] Distributed ledgers and control Eric Rescorla