-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11
How to implement arbitrary blockchain protocols on top of IPFS? #82
Comments
I responded:
Thanks! We're going to need all the help we can get to pull this off. Please jump in wherever you're interested!
You don't need anything more, actually. IPFS works well for this already. You may want to check out this post, by Christian Lundkvist: And this talk by me:
You should be able to do this all with just:
We do not yet have pub/sub. This is forthcoming:
Great thoughts on pub/sub. It would be useful to incorporate them into the pub/sub discussion. Please post on ipfs/notes#64 I will be putting a lot of time into pub/sub the week of Dec 20. It would help to have many pub/sub thoughts on that issue before then. |
Thanks, @jbenet, for the thoughtful answer.
My understanding is that if you use
My guess is that you cannot do that without a pub/sub system. I'm working on a proof-of-concept pub/sub and will eventually post to ipfs/notes#64. |
To my understanding, IPFS can be used to store transactions into something resembling blockchain and get them permanently stored, and even have a linked list between them to have a defined order between transactions levering merkle DAG (a crazy idea is that you do not really need a total order of all transactions, only those which interact with each other, so you can leverage graph-nature of IPFS). (Or would it be simple better to not try to map relations between transaction to internal merkle DAG and simply have each transaction store as data also the parent existing transaction?) But the issue is that while you can store such linked list of transactions, the issue is how does one know which head of possible competing linked lists is the one community has a consensus on. As @fsantanna wrote above, you have currently two options to decide which head is the correct one (and store that correct one using But there is still a question of what attack directions are possible here? When attacking different layers of IPFS? What one can do? Just denial of service of something more? A clearer understanding of this I think is needed. At least listing common issues with blockchains and see how IPFS addressed them. Also it is unclear what properties IPFS has in terms of how quickly would transactions be published in the network and stored "permanently". One issue is that this is linked to the consensus service one should implement. But also the issue is that by default IPFS does not distribute data automatically all around, what one would want for a blockchain. So some additional work to push all transactions to everyone else would be needed as well (or that they pull it). |
This issue was moved to https://discuss.ipfs.io/t/how-to-implement-arbitrary-blockchain-protocols-on-top-of-ipfs/451 |
@fsantanna said:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: