[palata]

> A distributed blockchain would actually prevent the malicious server issue. It would theoretically be better.

No it would not: the third-party audit record is there to prevent the malicious server issue, while being infinitely more practical than blockchain.

Blockchain enables crypto-currencies. For the rest, we have more practical solutions already.

[Aachen]

> the third-party audit record is there to prevent the malicious server issue

Third party? Isn't Facebook running the show, like, their own servers that do the key log recording and publishing? If so, I've misread the news (I looked into the details but can have missed something of course)

I 100% agree with you that this is infinitely more practical (and achieves essentially the same level of assurance if the third party is in another jurisdiction), if that's indeed what they're doing

[palata]

In this case it may be Facebook running the show. But I was answering to the "this is a use-case for blockchain" point.

It is not a use-case for blockchain: it is (much) easier to get one or more third-party servers to host the repository.

Blockchain is a pretty cool technology, but let's face it: it does not solve anything (other than cryptocurrencies) that we don't already know how to solve in a more practical way.