10 years have passed, and no one has figured out how to use the blockchain. And here again?

Is it really so? This is true almost 100 percent. But there are a couple of nuances. The first is the well-known cryptocurrency. Its properties still have some attractiveness on the background of Fiat. The topic is acute, quite frankly, politically very “charged”, therefore objectivity in it is not to be expected.

But here is another real case. Blockchain is perfect for organizing an honest casino, in which the PRNG is strictly and completely under the control of public consensus, and at any time we check it for anyone. The case applies to all types of gambling, where "honesty" and strict rules of accessibility to an array of random sequences matter. Poker, in which you do not have to trust the table organizer, works great on the bch. But this topic is also ambiguous - on the verge (and beyond) of the legal framework of various jurisdictions.

As far as I know, there are no other areas where the blockchain is applicable differently than a crutch bolted to a bumper. Apart from the hypothetical direct democracy and / or bureaucracy on the blockchain, of course - it looks even more fantastic now than anything else.

And nevertheless, I want to share one more idea of ​​the real application of technology.

Of course, it will also be slightly politically charged, but perhaps more relevant and more mundane at the moment than cryptocurrency and e-democracy.

In general, the bch somehow cuts into the sphere of trust between people. Therefore, it causes a diverse layer of experience regarding technology. And the crisis of trust between society and its institutions has matured long ago, and now it is entering a sharper phase ... but we will not be distracted.

So, the idea is an analogue of HTTPS on the blockchain.

What is the problem of the system in its current form?

Large corporations are pushing HTTPS everywhere everywhere without any support. HTTPS really blocks many MITM attacks, thereby protecting privacy. But there are nuances as usual. The certification authority system is very vulnerable to the “Snowden” method of attack. Moreover, HTTPS is becoming a potential feature of global censorship. Of course, corporations that promote total HTTPS have an impeccable (try reproach) reputation and do not abuse such very broad capabilities. But is it possible to be sure that as a result of the next crisis any odious personalities or fanatics of cults will not come to power? I do not think that such options are completely excluded. Now imagine that these people will get access to the global system of HTTPS centers? And among other things, even now hardly anyone can guarantee that the certificate authorities designed to protect themselves do not need to be protected and are no longer hacked by hackers.

I propose against the background of these statements to consider the following alternative to HTTPS.

In general, the architecture is very simple (I note right away that this is not a hidden advertisement, etc., but just a concept. I don’t know any analogs of such a system).

• All encryption is carried out through Diffie-Hellman's well-proven e2e algorithm.
• The algorithm has one vulnerability. Alice cannot be sure that he conducted the primary handshake and key exchange with Bob, not with Eva. By the way, the security illusion of all popular e2e-protected messengers with a closed server part is based on this.
• The “center” of public keys is available to anyone who wants to deploy a blockchain node on their server. Based on this blockchain - “center”, anyone can generate a session pair of ephemeral keys.

Let's now take a closer look at the system. There are a lot of questions and subtleties there. But let's stop at a couple of obvious ones.

• Again, is it possible to burn kilotons of hydrocarbons to solve the problem of the Byzantine generals?

It's all very simple. Not worth it. POW consensus has some charm, but has become obsolete. He popularized the very idea of ​​consensus in the database and for this recognition to him and his creator Satoshi. But further to participate in this mining madness makes no sense. Consensus can be without electricity (not literally of course): POS, DPOS, etc.

• Not everyone has the desire to download the blockchain to their device, for example, just to go to Google or Yandex. Why then such an overhead projector?

It's simple again. For those who do not need, it is quite possible to make a public node and already the risks of trusting such a node each of its users assumes (as is true now). Those for whom security matters matter, unwrap their own power unit and, possibly, participate in consensus.

• And what if I lose my private servant, then everything?

One of the really tricky questions of application of bch in real life Initially, yes - no privatnika - no user) But the question is solved. You can organize the process of delegating authority to restore access to a trusted circle of other privatniki. As an option - after a certain time. This may well be a commercial service on top of the blockchain ... or state.

• What if a lot of forks break this whole global process?

The question is open. This is possible, but there are a number of limiting factors to the unbridled forging. For example - default browser settings. This will greatly limit the massive "visibility" of forks. Moreover, it is possible to introduce a mechanism of consensus in principle excluding fork - only hard forks. This is offhand.

• The motivation to participate in a consensus and contain a node?

It is even easier than with cryptocurrency. Those who keep the node are themselves interested in the process of providing a secure e2e channel for their needs. But no one bothers to tokenize the process and attract funding through the exchange, as well as to provide the token with additional services on top of such a system.

• Will the special services agree with the lack of a single point of failure of the Internet encryption process?

The question is rhetorical, philosophical.

PS

The subtleties and nuances of such a system is very, very much. In the framework of one article, they do not comprehend.

But the main question: "Why do we need a blockchain?"

Then, with the help of it, it is easy to obtain a VERIFIED public key of a certain network member for organizing an e2e session. At the same time, it is more difficult for an attacker to replace him or seize control of the "center" due to the lack of such. At the same time, the current model of conditionally "registered in the browser" certification centers will also be able to work as it is now.