[simias]

If you actually put the content of the messages on the blockchain itself it'll become ridiculously expensive really fast. Furthermore if you actually wait until a message gets mined to be accepted it's not going to be exactly "instant" messaging.

What would be the point anyway? A dedicated peer-to-peer messaging network that doesn't need to keep track of the entire history of everything seems much more appropriate. IRC comes close to that with its federated architecture, although I suppose a completely seemless bittorent-like peer-to-peer chat using public key cryptography for message authentication could be pretty great.

[viach]

My original comment was a little bit sarcastic, but seriously - why not? I understand that a single blockchain will not handle global scale messaging. But a set of federated installations, could that work?

[jerf]

"My original comment was a little bit sarcastic, but seriously - why not?"

Because in engineering, the question is not "why not", but "why". Blockchains are not the default answer. What positive virtue is blockchain going to bring to your IM system that is not better attained by a non-blockchain-based solution?

If you can answer that, great. I'm not saying this has no answer. I'm just saying it's the real question.

If you are going to say the word "federated", then from what I can see, trying to do "blockchain" at that point isn't all that helpful and likely to be worse and harder than just trying to develop a federated system, a sufficient challenge on its own that doesn't strike me as greatly helped by "blockchains". XMPP already does federated IM, since long before the current fad.

I match any vague handwaves about identity or security with vague handwaves at existing SSL certificate authorities, and an observation that if you're going to complain about the security of such things I get to apply an equal amount of effort towards breaking your blockchain solution, e.g., if you're going to complain about nationstates getting root certificates they shouldn't, I get to point out your tiny little blockchain for IMs is equally vulnerable, if not more so.

[viach]

Thank you, great comment, excellent points. I'm not discussing here nation-state certificate ledgers vs my small miserable blockchain, but instead an instance of a federated (say, XMPP) network server vs blockchain based solution. From my point of view, on this level, it provides more security and, what is more important , incentives to run such a thing.

[jerf]

A blockchain-based solution to what, though? Bearing in mind the XMPP network exists now, and works. (It may not be "winning", but it works.) What is even the problem?

Though I will concede your point slightly; if XMPP needs some more Hype Juice to win, I can't deny "but on a blockchain!" could help there. Kinda not being sarcastic here.

[viach]

>> A blockchain-based solution to what, though?

To the declining popularity of Jabber, to put it short.

As an additional benefit, blockchain is indeed more secure to run than an ejabberd instance.

I understand your irony with "Hype Juice" etc. But in the end, good software is that which people use, right?

[ealhad]

I think that was sarcasm, given that “serverless” is a pretty trendy term, just like “blockchain”.

Chat on IPFS is a good idea, though.