I don't think availability of suitable technology is the problem. There are numerous options and numerous deployments of these. That is exactly the problem. A discovery protocol must either pick one datastore or pick many datastores and search them all. If it searches many of these datastores for the data it is trying to find what order does it follow and does it stop when it finds it's first match or does it search them all and then have some rules for picking the most correct match? These are hard problems which today are glossed over by the recommendation to "use telehash". Any clever ideas about how this can be overcome? On 7 April 2015 at 11:22, David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com> wrote: > use http://www.libtorrent.org/dht_store.html to store a verified > ledger. Start by adapting the BTC blockchain to dht_store access. > Devise a mechanism for trusting providers of cached ledger query > responses. > > > > What is missing is a decentralised data store that can serve as the > registry > > for these identities. The Credentials CG has proposed Telehash as this > > data-store. > > The challenge is that one then has to be explicit in defining the > discovery > > protocol as to which decentralised data store to use. > > > If someone proposed the namecoin block-chain as an alternative how do we > > decide which to use? > > Who will the stewards of this decentralised data store? > > Is there an architecture for this data store that would be > rubber-stamped by > > the W3C as a cornerstone for dependent recommendations? > > (Here I am trying to think of an architecture that incentivises > participants > > to maintain the network assuming that financial incentives aren't > practical) >
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2015 22:27:32 UTC