28

I read this blog (cached version) (and the related cached tweet) about replacing TCP/IP with blockchain.

Tweet:

The Internet has a serious fundamental flaw: the transmission control protocol/internet protocol (TCP/IP)—the primary engine underpinning the Internet—is less secure. Is #blockchain the solution we need to eliminate this flaw?

Blog snippet:

Blockchain can eliminate the TCP/IP’s fundamental security flaws.

An important value of using Blockchain is allowing users—particularly those who do not need to trust one another—to share valuable information securely and transfer value in a tamper-proof manner. This is because Blockchain stores data using complex cryptography and extremely difficult protocols for attackers to manipulate.

...

Blockchain technology provides a secure and immediate way of transmitting digital assets from anywhere in the world to anyone in the world.

But I see a lot of people are saying it's not a good replacement.

But I don't understand why exactly? What are the reasons?

2
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Rory Alsop
    Jul 6 at 17:33
  • 3
    It pleases me that the blog post was taken down with such fervor that the page now has a server error. Just waiting for their LinkedIn profile to no longer say "Present" in "Oct 2020 - Present"
    – MonkeyZeus
    Jul 6 at 20:40
211

Blockchain is a distributed ledger. Because everyone has a copy of the data, and those copies can be verified and protected by some very clever algorithms, it makes the data stored on them reliable and secure.

But "replace TCP/IP with blockchain" is a meaningless, nonsense, and click-baity phrase.

TCP/IP is a transport protocol. Blockchain runs on top of TCP/IP. So, it's like saying "Roads are dangerous and not designed for personal safety. Cars have all these safety features. We should replace roads with cars."

Blockchain is a distributed ledger. Who is getting a copy of all this data meant for a single party? So, it's like saying "Phones can be tapped. We should give everyone bullhorns." Sure, you can encrypt the data sent, but you then have to justify this encryption over top of and in relationship to TLS.

It's not that blockchain is "not a good replacement", but rather, without quite a lot of explanation and context, it's a play at sounding cool and like one has some earth-shattering idea to use a hyped-up, over-promised technology. It's the sort of idea a couple of drunk people come up with at 2am and write on the back of a napkin. Most people see the ramblings the next day and have the good sense to throw the napkin out. Alas, this author decided to use it as a pitch to RSA to drive clicks...


By the way, the author of the article in question claims to be

"a 30-year veteran in the blockchain and DeFi space ..."

It would appear that he wrote his bio at 2am, too...

4
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – schroeder
    Jul 7 at 8:21
  • 1
    @MR.-c The end result of all these comments is that, yes, DNS might be an interesting place to consider something like a blockchain or something similar. Not for clients, of course, but between DNS servers.
    – schroeder
    Jul 7 at 8:22
  • 1
    well didn't expect for the 10K views. looks like the question was kinda dump lol
    – MR.-c
    Jul 7 at 15:41
  • 2
    @MR.-c it was such a weird, messed up article, the whole industry did a double-take
    – schroeder
    Jul 7 at 15:49
34

This question might as well be "disadvantages of replacing a watch with a hammer". The two tools have utterly nothing in common and there is no way of using one as the other. The whole post was just technobabble targeted at unqualified investors and management level people who have no knowledge about either and to whom the blockchain startup guy behind it wanted to promote himself.

3
  • 4
    Correction: while there's no way of using a hammer as a watch, you can definitely use a watch as an (expensive, fragile) hammer.
    – cpast
    Jul 6 at 1:15
  • 13
    @cpast Correction: A hammer is a stick, with a conveniently stable base. You can definitely use it to draw a circle and radius reference lines on the ground, then place the hammer vertically in the center of the circle, and observe the movement of its shadow over the lines. That will make for an expensive, but inaccurate watch.
    – Andrei
    Jul 6 at 8:48
  • 3
    @Andrei it wouldn't even be that expensive. Also, it's called a "sun dial" ;)
    – FreeMan
    Jul 6 at 11:32
12

The disadvantage would be that you replace a working, tested and battle-hardened technology that suits its purpose and has mountains of stuff built on top of it with something that isn't even a networking technology.

"Blockchain" in this sense is meaningless technobabble. Which part, exactly of "blockchain" is meant to replace TCP/IP? Maybe the IBC protocol? The article doesn't say.

Nor does it say how, exactly, something like the WWW would run on top of a blockchain. Would sites be on the ledger? If so, what about dynamic content? Are we talking about Ethereal-like smart contracts here, or Bitcoin-like transactions?

In short, there's nothing but some technobabble in the linked article, a good sign that the idea is neither thought through nor reasonably likely.

The disadvantage? Throwing something out that works for something that's nonsense.

1
  • 5
    "Battle-hardened"? That's a bit dramati--(researches origins of TCP). I see. Quite well said. Jul 6 at 21:03

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.