Could Blockchain be used to create a platform for whistle blowing/leaks?

[IvanFyodorovich]

I understand that file storage and sharing is possible on a blockchain. I have been considering if a website like wikileaks could exist entirely as a blockchain, maintaining a permanent public record of everything published and consisting of enough nodes that nothing could take down the network nor could any one party be legally responsible for administering the service.

Could this work?

[mocacinno]

I don't see why not... It won't be an easy task tough...
Who can push data? If everybody could create a new report and add it to the blockchain, it'll be spammed to hell...
If you'd use some kind of POW algo to require some work from data submitters you'll limit some whissleblowers while still getting spammed (but less than if you'd require no work to "mine" a block)...
If you'd require a valid signature to submit data, it cannot be submitted anonymously...

And i'd be afraid of some governements making it illegal to run a node... I can think off a few that would probably give harsh prison sentences to people hosting sensitive information.

[Saltius]

Of course you can.
1. While you are pushing critical data, others can upload tons of trash data on blockchain. In this case, one can't find your info unless provided with a pointer.
2. Then how do you spread the info of the pointers reffering your blockchain data to others?
3. Use traditional internet to spread but it can be silenced. That is why you turn to blockchain tech.
4. Use some blockchains to hold the pointers but just look back to stage 1. Others could still cover your pointers by trash data.

[cabron]

There are blockchakn projects that supposedly has it on their roadmaps to make it more decentralized like namecoin for domains and storage systems like storj or siacoin. Or theres filecoin storage that will serve as server.

I don't see why not... It won't be an easy task tough...
Who can push data? If everybody could create a new report and add it to the blockchain, it'll be spammed to hell...
If you'd use some kind of POW algo to require some work from data submitters you'll limit some whissleblowers while still getting spammed (but less than if you'd require no work to "mine" a block)...
If you'd require a valid signature to submit data, it cannot be submitted anonymously...

And i'd be afraid of some governements making it illegal to run a node... I can think off a few that would probably give harsh prison sentences to people hosting sensitive information.

It can also be used to misinform instead. Data submitters can be manipulated too. When a group of political rebels has agenda to push, it wont matter how expensive it can be in setting up nodes.

[franky1]

true blockchains is about chaining digits together forever

a document from source A does not need to be chained to source B file. it solves no purpose
even if its just used as a timestamp for file hashes to prove when it was first uploaded. means nothing

whistleblowing a 1970's military order but publishing it in 2020 as a locked 2020 timestamp. means nothing.

what the whistleblowers want is not the blockchain. but the decentralised relaying network. which things like tor/torrents offer

the only benefit of a datalocking blockchain. would be to titlise and authenticate a document,.
EG if a file is virus checked. they can use the hashfile and the document title to immortilise which file is a true clean copy. then if modified versions pop up that might have trackers/viruses in the document it can check the file hash and see which one is genuine.

however this can easily be broken by making the dirty file the initial locked hash. thus making people fooled into thinking its clean because its listed.  .. thus pointless as it then breaks the trust of he blockchain

[Broly46]

What matter is the code under the genesis block, as if satoshi encrypt the news from the chancellor into the bitcoin itself.

[Vod]

I understand that file storage and sharing is possible on a blockchain. I have been considering if a website like wikileaks could exist entirely as a blockchain, maintaining a permanent public record of everything published and consisting of enough nodes that nothing could take down the network nor could any one party be legally responsible for administering the service.

Could this work?

How is this any different than running a torrent client with versioning?

[zanezane]

There was a actually a concept done by some programmer that became a member of Cicada 3301. It is an escrow type of program that is transmitted across servers from different countries if the author of the article does not log in to the program which is then published around the world, the target users of this program were whistleblowers and journalists that are living in countries that have a backwards policy and no freedom of speech, it didn't gain traction but it was a good concept. If you want to create a platform, I think that you should just download Tails OS because that is the primary use of that one.

[squatz1]

I understand that file storage and sharing is possible on a blockchain. I have been considering if a website like wikileaks could exist entirely as a blockchain, maintaining a permanent public record of everything published and consisting of enough nodes that nothing could take down the network nor could any one party be legally responsible for administering the service.

Could this work?

How is this any different than running a torrent client with versioning?

Because some people like throwing buzz words on normal things just so they can generate some hype.

There’s literally no reason to add more complexity to a system that works fine. Adding blockchain isn’t going to change anything. It’s just a marketing thing to try to get some buzz to a project.

Secure Drop, Signal, and so on all work right now.

[zeuner]

I understand that file storage and sharing is possible on a blockchain. I have been considering if a website like wikileaks could exist entirely as a blockchain, maintaining a permanent public record of everything published and consisting of enough nodes that nothing could take down the network nor could any one party be legally responsible for administering the service.

Could this work?

Not sure what the advantage would be.

Also, I don't see why the administrator of the individual node hosting some of the published data wouldn't be legally responsible for doing so. No matter whether the data is referenced from a blockchain.