4 ms·

The case against blockchain for identity

7 points by ko3us 9y ago

ko3us 9y ago
This is an interesting article because it outlines the flaws in blockchain, especially the payload. There are heaps of blockchain companies claiming to use blockchain to store large amounts of data. However, the ability to scale and store that seems disproportionate. Maybe something like IPFS + a blockchain could be used, but the immutability is lost the moment its stored on a file store. The blockchain just acts as a pointer.
- lgierth 9y ago
  IPFS is an immutable store. You add something to it, and put the resulting hash into a transaction.
  - davidgerard 9y ago
    This doesn't quite get across what's happening: it's a content-addressable file system, like basing a file system on BitTorrent magnet: links, with the same guarantee that anyone will have the content when you go looking for it.
    - tristanhoy 9y ago
      Exactly, it's a tamper proof P2P file system. But it's far from immutable. Torrents die every day because people stop hosting them. The best thing you can do to keep an important but unpopular file alive is ongoing upkeep: host it on your own infrastructure, or pay for an Amazon S3 torrent. IPFS and filecoins are exactly the same. The availability depends on either popularity, running your own server and hoping you don't have a fire, or ongoing payments for redundant storage. That's not immutable. Blockchain has a much stronger immutability guarantee, because everyone involved is economically incentivised to maintain every single transaction that ever took place, no matter how insignificant.
      - diggan 9y ago
        Yeah, the content itself might not always be available, the only guarantee is that if that content exists, you'll get exactly that. If the content is not available, you get nothing. So the links themselves are immutable but the content might not be available.
        tristanhoy 9y ago
        And that's what's so hilarious about putting a content hash on a blockchain, when you can just give it to someone over HTTPS. The hash is plenty immutable all on its own. Strong transaction ordering can give you proof of existence at a certain point in time, but that's not useful in an identity context.

7 points by ko3us 9y ago

This is an interesting article because it outlines the flaws in blockchain, especially the payload. There are heaps of blockchain companies claiming to use blockchain to store large amounts of data. However, the ability to scale and store that seems disproportionate. Maybe something like IPFS + a blockchain could be used, but the immutability is lost the moment its stored on a file store. The blockchain just acts as a pointer.

lgierth 9y ago
IPFS is an immutable store. You add something to it, and put the resulting hash into a transaction.
- davidgerard 9y ago
  This doesn't quite get across what's happening: it's a content-addressable file system, like basing a file system on BitTorrent magnet: links, with the same guarantee that anyone will have the content when you go looking for it.
  - tristanhoy 9y ago
    Exactly, it's a tamper proof P2P file system. But it's far from immutable. Torrents die every day because people stop hosting them. The best thing you can do to keep an important but unpopular file alive is ongoing upkeep: host it on your own infrastructure, or pay for an Amazon S3 torrent. IPFS and filecoins are exactly the same. The availability depends on either popularity, running your own server and hoping you don't have a fire, or ongoing payments for redundant storage. That's not immutable. Blockchain has a much stronger immutability guarantee, because everyone involved is economically incentivised to maintain every single transaction that ever took place, no matter how insignificant.
    - diggan 9y ago
      Yeah, the content itself might not always be available, the only guarantee is that if that content exists, you'll get exactly that. If the content is not available, you get nothing. So the links themselves are immutable but the content might not be available.
      - tristanhoy 9y ago
        And that's what's so hilarious about putting a content hash on a blockchain, when you can just give it to someone over HTTPS. The hash is plenty immutable all on its own. Strong transaction ordering can give you proof of existence at a certain point in time, but that's not useful in an identity context.