Hacker News Reader

Comment by notacoward | Hacker News Reader

I'm generally a blockchain hater, but it seems like distributing/maintaining CVE information via something blockchain-ish would be pretty cool.

View on HN

IPFS would do the job equally well.

What's wrong with, you know, the way we've been doing it for the last 25 years or so?

Exactly what benefit does "but blockchain!" bring?

You might be able to convince some clown to fund it that way!

I am guessing OP means it can't be deleted or taken down

Maybe, but the content isn’t really in danger, it presumably can be backed up, and presumably already has.

What’s in danger is the work required to coordinate such efforts in the future, and rubbing blockchain on it doesn’t help.

(I know you weren’t advocating it, I just get tired of people who don’t understand the amount of effort that goes into “free” content.)

IPFS doesn't use a blockchain, which is why I suggested it. It allows content to be published permanently. If you wanted to keep the real, actual CERN homepage around, you only need to choose to propagate it from your node.

It's not "but blockchain" so much as avoiding either logistical or trust dependency on a single entity. Blockchain has all sorts of problems and limitations, the idea of a working currency based on it is absolutely insane IMO, but it has these particular properties. So do more complex systems such as IPFS or Tahoe-LAFS or LOCKSS, but ... well, they're more complex. Other solutions such as simple mirroring don't necessarily solve the trust problem. Of the technologies currently available, blockchain seems like a pretty decent choice.

IPFS is still equally as usable as I2P and full-syncing the Ehtereum network.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com