Topic: Storing data on the bitcoin blockchain (Read 614 times)

Not so: People have falsely claimed there were on a number of occasions but to the best of my knowledge that has always just been bamboozled media people talking about simple URLs to long dead hidden services, not "illegal images" themselves.  Also, data buried in an effectively inaccessible location that requires special tools and knowledge to access isn't the same as a file serving service practically or legally.


When you originally created this thread "I don't give a flying fuck" was about what I thought of your proposal. Yet I kept my response matter of fact.  Too bad you didn't extend similar courtesy to other participants here. You were even warned that what you were asking for wasn't going to get a loving response, so it seems silly to be offended by the predictable outcome...


As you wish.

Then that's why your "BIP"/"proposal"? No would give a flying fuck about that too. The Core developers have made sure they made design-decisions to regulate the block size, to maintain decentralization, and maintain the network's security.

but bcash -> bcashsv is a hard fork, in fact there has been at least 4 or 5 hard forks there which means the exchange/users have had to update their clients multiple times already. being centralized and having very small number of nodes, users and miners also helps a lot.

I don't agree that encryption will inevitably be broken. That's a straw-man argument. If you're really worried about encryption, nobody said you had to use a standard encryption algorithm like AES-256. You could use a 512-bit or 1024 bit AES if you like. If you're worried about quantum attacks you can use a quantum-resistant encryption scheme. Heck, you can use 10 different quantum algorithms and 10 classical algorithms strung together.

I never said anything about encrypting anyway - the data could be non-sensitive data. It could be hashes or timestamps. If it is encrypted data, then it's really no more risky than storing it in the cloud. In fact it's a trade-off. If you store your data in the cloud you run the risk of them losing your data or confiscating it. When it comes to encryption you have 2 choices with the cloud: they manage the keys, or you manage the keys. Of course you can do both and double-encrypt your data.

The bottom line is: you need to take care of your own keys. If they get compromised, either through a physical attack or cyber attack, the attacker will be able to access your data whether you store it on a private cloud or on a public blockchain. So the issue comes down to key management. There are several ways to do this, most notably key distribution so there are multiple keys in different physical locations.

The bottom line is: If you are a law firm, and you have sensitive data, any time you need to access that data, you need to grab the encrypted data from somewhere, decrypt it, then view it, or do whatever you need to do. Whether that somewhere is a public blockchain or private cloud is irrelevant, so long as you're using a decent encryption scheme. It's just transferring bytes which are absolutely useless to anybody not in possession of the keys and with knowledge of the encryption scheme.

it is because these altcoins have no use cases as a cryptocurrency or anything else. so their owners have to come up with different "ideas" that could invent some use case and create spam so that the coin doesn't look abandoned when you look at how many transactions are being made every day.

i find it very strange that they are splitting the data into multiple OP_Return outputs instead of one since each output will have at least 10 extra repeated bytes! i already explained why it is the worst in my previous comment.

it won't. and you don't need to shut down your node, you can easily reject anything that you think is non-standard as your node is already doing it.

what happens when the encryption is inevitably broken and all those sensitive files are now out in the open?

EDIT: as the thread starter you can lock this thread yourself i believe. but an answer to my question 1st would be cool.

Typically I would expect people to store small text files, not jpegs, because they cost too much. If somebody wants to put a small image of their new born baby or a recently lost loved one, I would expect it. But such an image could cost $10 or more so market dynamics will decide


There already is illegal images on the bitcoin BTC blockchain, so you're hosting them on your node. I don't expect this to become the de-facto method by which sickos distribute their sick images. It makes no sense economically and the blockchain makes it easy for them to get caught, so I don't expect this to be a problem.


Not wanted by you, maybe. Do you speak for the entire community? I'm sure many people would welcome a way to store small, critical pieces of data, safe in the knowledge that the data can never be lost and they can access it any time in the future.

This is not just about private individuals storing their favourite cat pictures though, you need to think bigger. How about law firms storing important legal information? Think bigger.


I don't give a flying fuck


Bitcoin SV are very bullish on this idea and are already doing it.


Usenet is 90's tech. Torrents are 00's tech and also outdated. Torrents are great for sharing transient data but if you want persistence torrents are useless. Your response is not just condecending, but shows up your mental laziness.

 This is not the use case I'm discussing.

Ok that's my last post in this thread. Mod, can you please lock/delete this thread ? I'm clearly wasting my time.

Do you have any idea what it would cost to store even a simple .jpg picture on the bitcoin blockchain? Also, what if that picture would show unwanted/illegal stuff? It would mean all full nodes in the entire world would now store this unwanted/illegal stuff.

Just my two cents: You are having an idea for a standard for something that is not wanted in any way on the bitcoin blockchain. The moment it would become a standard I would for sure turn off my node. I can't imagine any other public blockchain would ever try to accomplish this. You want to store/exhcange files use usenet/torrent or whatever.

Data ~= Files  

A file is nothing but some data with an associated key. What I'm talking about is storing data, with a key so it is easily retrieved. Files are traditionally identified by an extension such as ".jpeg" but this is quite wasteful so I propose replacing it with a number (maybe 3 or 4 byte or a VarInt). So you have:

1. Raw data
2. Key (filename)
3. Data type (1=jpg, 2=png, ...)

FYI, Bitcoin SV is already doing something like this, and they already have a system devised for splitting up large files into several OP_RETURN transactions, but I'm not sure if they have a keying mechanism. That is the icing on the cake. - but the idea could be taken further with features such as splitting up large files, versioning, and whatever else.

So, to re-phrase, my idea is to come up with a *standard* store data on the blockchain (not a new idea, already being done my MS and others), together with a key (possibly a new idea, but I won't be so arrogant as to think somebody else has not already thought of it).

And this would be a standard - it would not be limited to BTC core, it would be a standard that could be implemented on any blockchain.

that is all.

Agreed!

However I was mainly responding to OP who said: "My idea is nothing but to come up with a standard for storing files on the blockchain, so Alice can put a file on the blockchain with a certain filename, can give that filename to Bob and Bob can read the file without too much pain." and then saying: "See, even Microsoft does this now".  In that context: storing a small amount of data using the standard OP_RETURN is not the same as Microsoft now storing files in the bitcoin blockchain.

I mean, technically the distinction between a file and data (and anything digital really) is rather arbitrary ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But yeah, storing small amounts of data / small files is not the same as storing documents or even media files. I do think Bitcoin and IPFS can complement each other rather well though and using one to verify the data of the other is IMO as close as it gets to what I assume OP had in mind. Whether that's something that should be turned into a BIP is a different question of course.

Data != Files

Then Peter Todd's OpenTimestamps is for you, https://opentimestamps.org/#how-it-works

Thank Bitcoin's POW/high hashing power for making it very secure, and possible.

here is the official MS blog post on it.

It's built on Bitcoin core and IPFS and MongoDB. I think Bitcoin is mainly used as a timestamping mechanism, but there you go... the BTC chain being used to store data by one of the largest tech companies in the world.

He is probably talking about ION
https://github.com/decentralized-identity/ion
It's a second layer solution on top of BTC blockchain

Odds are they are not building on the BTC blockchain but rather their own blockchain. Nothing new there - private blockchains are already being used to track farm produce from field to store, cities are using it to track SSL streetlight and surveillance camera installations again, from manufacture right up to where/when/who (contractor used) they are installed onto poles, etc.

I totally get that.

As an engineer, using the blockchain as a way to store files is overkill even if you want censorship resistance and for the file to be there forever. But tell me - what other options are out there? I'm currently looking into IPFS, but from what I hear there are some risks of your data being deleted or disappearing.

For the record, I'm not limiting myself to the Bitcoin blockchain - I think this should be an option on Litecoin, BSV, BCH, and all the Bitcoin forks - and any blockchain.

OP, Bitcoin CASH SV store weather data on "the blockchain", try your idea there, I believe your proposal would be welcome by their community.

I'm sure i got the point and i never said you're trying to sell your idea.

What i'm opposed is using the idea for trivial case such as transfer file between 2 users (which you mentioned), there are many ways to do it such as IPFS or Tor.
I don't mind if it's used for something really important such as activist / journalist share important information to the world.

The blockchain is not intended to store files, it never has been and it never will be. You are describing a way to exchange files between Bob and Alice in a way it will be stored on every full node forever. Either the size of the blockchain would become enormous or regular transactions (the intended use case of the bitcoin blockchain) would not fit in anymore. Furthermore at current fees it would become extremely expensive to do so. In short: you are trying to find a "standard" for something that is not intended for the bitcoin blockchain and never will.

In case Alice wants to put up a reference to a file for Bob she can use the standard OP_RETURN.