>> Under block chain, an RIR would not be able to revoke number> resources, not >> even for non-payment or fraud. > > Okay, this would lead to a permanent loss of resources, whereas > cryptocurrency does not have this issue.
For what it's worth, this is quite implementation specific and leaves a lot of room for intentional and appropriate design decisions. Custom smart contract (think "decentralized program") code could be used to enable the functionality desired for an RIR, without other functionality. Let's extrapolate: An RIR could use smart contracts with immutable code to allow an entity to register a specific block and retain certain permissions over that block. Furthermore, the code could permit RIR-initiated revocation only in certain circumstances (perhaps such as non-payment) and could even handle expiration via variables set in the token, thereby handling some of this natively on-chain and not requiring manual action from an RIR for expiry. These could be locked to specific owners or free for transfer. The only thing that being on-chain mandates here is that the code executed is the code put on-chain, and that what happens - stays "happened". E.g. the past is immutable. Transfers are still possible. FWIW, many of these design decisions have been addressed by one of the larger projects out there, [ENS](https://docs.ens.domains/wrapper/overview), which bares some similarity in use case. On Wednesday, November 13th, 2024 at 2:37 PM, Brandon Z. - Brandon at huize.asia <brandon_at_huize_asia_gor...@simplelogin.co> wrote: > Hi William, > >> Under block chain, an RIR would not be able to revoke number >> resources, not even for non-payment or fraud. > > Okay, this would lead to a permanent loss of resources, whereas > cryptocurrency does not have this issue. > >> Also, please don't cross-post discussions to two lists. It's against > the rules for NANOG and I presume it's against the rules for MANRS as > well. > > Noticed that; sorry for posting twice as well. > > Best, > Brandon Z. > HUIZE LTD > [www.huize.asia](https://huize.asia/)| [www.ixp.su](https://www.ixp.su/) | > Twitter > > This e-mail and any attachments or any reproduction of this e-mail in > whatever manner are confidential and for the use of the addressee(s) only. > HUIZE LTD can’t take any liability and guarantee of the text of the email > message and virus. > > On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 at 12:16, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 6:39 AM Brandon Z. <bran...@huize.asia> wrote: >>> Another concept is to use blockchain technology. While cryptocurrencies >>> use computational power to verify ownership, BGP could use peer count. >>> If an IP resource is marked as valid by a majority of high-influence >>> networks (with many peers), it could be trusted by the entire internet. >> >> Hi Brandon, >> >> That's not how blockchain works. Validation is time-bound and >> irrevocable. Only the current key-holder can transfer the validated >> material to another entity. Effecting such transfers requires minimal >> computation, on the order of a few HTTPS transfers. >> >> Under block chain, an RIR would not be able to revoke number >> resources, not even for non-payment or fraud. And if the keys >> associated with an address block were lost or stolen, the address >> block would effectively be lost with them. The whole point of the >> block chain is that it is mathematically irrevocable. Period and full >> stop. >> >> Bear in mind that the five RIRs are self-organized. There's not a >> whole lot to stop a sixth RIR from organizing if enough address >> holders (and their money) get together and agree they want one. Which >> would surely happen if a government attempted to cut off an entire >> country from address registration. >> >> Also, please don't cross-post discussions to two lists. It's against >> the rules for NANOG and I presume it's against the rules for MANRS as >> well. >> >> Regards, >> Bill Herrin >> >> -- >> William Herrin >> b...@herrin.us >> https://bill.herrin.us/
