4 ms·
>The interesting bit of any BGP enhancement is the governance of changes to the list of prefixes and keys. Doesn't that sound like a basically valid use case f
by brazzy 4y ago
>The interesting bit of any BGP enhancement is the governance of changes to the list of prefixes and keys.
Doesn't that sound like a basically valid use case for a blockchain? Not saying that it's necessarily the best solution, but having that governance based on some kind of distributed consensus protocol does sound reasonable, and that's what a blockchain fundamentally provides.
- mort96 4y agoI don't know about you, but I would prefer it if the security of critical Internet infrastructure wasn't dependent on the popularity of some shitcoin. Which would be necessary, since the distributed consensus depends on the financial motivation for people to spend resources on mining new blocks. You'd need enough random people mining that a government couldn't do a 51% attack.
- 0x64 4y agoWhat makes you think a network like this would be PoW in the first place? It could just be PoA.
- mort96 4y agoIf you do it by proof of authority, aren't you just back where you started with some hand-picked set of authorities which have to form a consensus, just like today's internet?
- brazzy 4y agoThe point would be that you'd have a secure and reliable method to reach, record, and distribute that consensus. Not much of a cryptopunk thing, but a possible useful application of the technology.
- danielheath 4y agoYou could design one on blockchain, yes. I can't really discuss the particular merits of it, though, because this RFC doesn't deign to actually address any of the interesting or difficult parts of enhancing BGP. It doesn't even talk about what security properties their proposals would support if they had been written - other than 'more secure'.