
Intel releases open source blockchain - pjholmes
http://www.ibtimes.com/intel-reveals-its-plan-blockchain-technology-sawtooth-lake-distributed-ledger-2350599
======
cloudjacker
Anyone who has been following blockchain technology for more than 6 months can
see that this is the same recycled already-done altcoin as the last guy.

The promoters get larger, and the consortiums get larger.

People need to talk about the WHY and HOW their blockchain works better. How
it solves problems better than an existing blockchain. This isn't detailed
because you already know the answer: "It doesn't, but I couldn't get a pull
request to that other open-source repo approved so I made my own" .... "and
this time got my managers to approve it too"

But yeah the consensus model sounds interesting.

~~~
TD-Linux
The introduction in the actual code actually explains it. It's not yet another
rebadged Bitcoin Core codebase.

[http://intelledger.github.io/introduction.html](http://intelledger.github.io/introduction.html)

The security model is totally different than Bitcoin - it's based on trusted
nodes, leading to much different tradeoffs.

~~~
cloudjacker
> The security model is totally different than Bitcoin - it's based on trusted
> nodes, leading to much different tradeoffs.

Tradeoffs such as?

I read that and it is hard to conceptualize the pros and cons. Sometimes I
think about why blockchains weren't considered as a solution to the byzantine
generals problem before 2008. Was it fucking stupid? Was the consensus idea
improperly dismissed? Never considered? I would say from 2000 - 2008 internet
latency was 'good enough' in some places for this. Maybe 2004 - 2008 the
storage space improvements were also good enough.

Sometimes I really wonder.

~~~
TD-Linux
One obvious one: rather than consuming tons of power hashing, miners buy Intel
chips. Hashrate in Bitcoin is equivalent to number of Intel CPUs owned in this
scheme. The Intel CPUs are mostly idle, so use very little power.

There are a lot of other interesting things that they could do with SGX,
though just from reading the introduction it seems that they didn't attempt
any other innovations.

~~~
jaekwon
You're trusting Intel, essentially.

It would be interesting to see Intel open their SGX platform so as for it to
be configurable, and use it to attest Tendermint nodes. Accountable BFT
consensus benefit from hardware attestation.

------
geofft
Here's the interesting part over existing blockchains / the reason why Intel
is involved, from
[http://intelledger.github.io/introduction.html](http://intelledger.github.io/introduction.html)
:

"This project includes a consensus algorithm, PoET (Proof of Elapsed Time),
which is intended to run in a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE), such as
Intel® Software Guard Extensions (SGX)."

~~~
jhallenworld
Byzantine fault tolerance becomes simple if you have trusted hardware.

I've been trying to understand the base of trust in this: I think it's Intel
EPID: it boils down to a secret key burned into the hardware and managed by
the ME. What happens if Intel's signing machine is exposed?

~~~
geofft
That's an interesting point. If the threat model assumes that Intel's secure
computing infrastructure will not be compromised, can't you just use remote
attestation to prove you're running an unmodified Foocoin client on physical
Intel hardware, and have a traditional consensus protocol? Then you don't need
proof-of-time or proof-of-anything-else, just proof-of-physical-Intel-
hardware.

Either way, whoever controls 50% of the genuine (where "genuine" = "signed by
Intel's master key") Intel hardware gets to control consensus, right?

------
devishard
I'm somewhat surprised: this is written _in Python_.

I wonder what the motivation is here. I've long believed that a lot of
security issues could be avoided simply by using higher-level languages, but I
haven't seen many major security undertaking done in higher-level languages.

~~~
querulous
something like bitcoin is an excellent match for a high level language (altho
not necessarily python). the performance demands are all in the hashing
algorithms (which are done by dedicated hardware, not software). it's way more
important the control layer be correct than it be fast

~~~
devishard
I totally agree, in fact, I'd say "it's way more important to be correct than
to be fast" is almost always true in cryptography. Incorrect crypto is useless
no matter how fast it is.

------
koolba
Are there any _closed_ source block chains?

~~~
yarrel
There are proprietary ones.

------
patrickg_zill
I personally love the idea of using a blockchain to send anonymous, encrypted
messages.

I tried out BitMessage I think it was, a while back; I think a stripped-down
lightweight version of it would be very useful.

Maybe with a Web browser doing encryption, decryption in-browser (already
Tutanota etc. do this). Not sure as to the the other pieces that would need to
be deployed.

~~~
wslh
BitMessage is not secure (query BitMessage security on Google)

If you are interested, you can use OpenPGP with ECC ( and the JS
implementation [https://github.com/Jaxx-io/openpgpjs-
secp256k1](https://github.com/Jaxx-io/openpgpjs-secp256k1) )

Take into account that you need to use different keys for signing and
encryption and the BIP 44 can be useful for this purpose.

------
Fando
I'm not well versed on developments in blockchain tech. Could someone here
help explain whether this is good news and which specific problems, if any,
would this technology help solve. For example, could this be applied to
provide secure online voting systems? I like that proof of work protocols are
inherently safe as long as majority computing power is 'good'. Could such
decentralized security technologies replace the currently centralized ones
completely, for example, certificate authorities? Please pardon my ignorance,
I'm eager to learn.

------
wmf
Proof of Intel processor? Bitcoin people are going to have a fit.

~~~
kordless
Don't stir the pot, please. Getting people riled up is just pointless.

Here's the proof of time disclaimer, which might be considered to be "proof of
Intel inside":
[http://intelledger.github.io/introduction.html?highlight=pro...](http://intelledger.github.io/introduction.html?highlight=proof)

~~~
dTal
Talk about burying the lead. My first question was "why on Earth"? Thanks for
answering it.

And I'd hardly call pointing this out "stirring the pot" or "pointless". This
has serious security, openness, and privacy implications that definitely
deserve to be mentioned in the discussion for what amounts to a _press
release_.

~~~
kordless
When people use comments like "people are going to have a fit", they are
speaking for others. _THAT_ is stirring the pot, whether it's serious or not.

------
xyzzy4
There's already a million altcoins, so I think Intel is late to the party.

~~~
pencilcode
A blockchain can be used for more stuff than currency. See ethereum for
example.

