Subject: Re: [Ilc] [saag] Distributed ledgers and control

From: David Mazieres <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 04:43:08 -0700

Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]> 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

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:24:17 -0500

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 6:43 AM, David Mazieres <
[email-masked]> wrote
> the public to verify whether or not such activity is happening.

Just for those who may not be tracking this kind of work, this is something
that's starting to happen, though typically with semi-centralized consensus
mechanisms. In that form, it's generally known as "Binary Transparency".

See, for instance:

- https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/binary-transparency
and
- https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Binary_Transparency

-Ekr

> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> saag mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag
>