<p>The blockchain is a data structure that every node in the network independently builds, based on messages that are exchanged in a network.</p>

<p>Blockchains don't prescribe what this network protocol looks like. The OSI model is a way to describe layers in a network, not data structures.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-06T04:39:02.143Z
2016-11-06T04:39:02.143Z
Pieter Wuille
<blockquote>
<p><strong>AFAIK, blockchain is a distributed database</strong> [...]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In a <em>distributed</em> database there is usually a coordinated distribution of data across nodes such that individual nodes only have a subset. The Bitcoin blockchain is not a distributed database of this sort. There is no coordination and no centrally managed subsetting.</p>
<p>Bitcoin's blockchain is a <em>replicated</em> database. Every full node has a complete copy.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[...] <strong>that maintains a continuously-growing list of records called blocks secured from tampering and revision.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>True. Really it is a list of records of transactions. You can think of blocks as like pages in a transaction journal.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>How does this technology be explained in terms of OSI 7 layer model?</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>It isn't and can't be.</p>
<p>The ISO OSI 7-layer model was mainly associated with the X25 data network. It is obsolete. It does not apply to the Internet which has it's own 4-layer model.</p>
<p>The Bitcoin network protocol is at the application layer in this 4-layer model. It mostly uses TCP at the transport layer and IP at the inter-network layer.</p>
<p>The Bitcoin network protocol allows each Bitcoin node to gossip with a handful of peer nodes in order to exchange data including blockchain data items such as blocks and transactions etc. In this way blockchain data percolates across the planet.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-09T23:14:50.537Z
2022-10-09T23:31:24.043Z
2022-10-09T23:31:24.043Z
RedGrittyBrick
<p>This might technically be incorrect, however philosophically it is the only way to explain "the blockchain" without going in this cryptocurrency-"asset/value transfer"-rubbish which really is not what the blockchain is about.</p>

<p>So, lets assume there are 8 layers. The 8. layer is the blockchain layer, its whole purpose is to answer the question </p>

<p><strong><em>who did what when</em></strong> </p>

<p>on protocol level, ie. accessible and available for all like FTP/HTTP (TCP/IP) for data transfer.</p>

<p>Now it should make more sense to you why asset transfer and votings and patents and author's rights and backoffice optimization are all use cases for blockchain technology: "who did what when".</p>

<p>taken from: <a href="https://monax.io/explainers/ecosystem_applications/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://monax.io/explainers/ecosystem_applications/</a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-20T18:41:29.560Z
To know who did what when, use a log file with auditors. A blockchain does not make things magically immutable - it does so through the use of consensus algorithms among a set of trusted parties (PBFT, private blockchains), or through economic incentives in public (Proof of Work, public network). The latter only works when there is a subsidy to incentivize convergence, something that isn't available for general purpose logs.
Pieter Wuille
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-21T21:11:32.360Z
you are perfectly right for a specific context or environment, eg. a organisation, a company, etc. Then of course auditable logs are the best fit for this and a blockchain doesn't make sense at all. I was thinking of a environment of several parties, probably even in competition, which do not have processes or rules to set up a "auditable log" since there is no admin, no processes, no agreed-upon rules. Then a common "infrastructur component" which answers the question permissionless and decentrally is what you need.
Ice09
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-21T21:54:54.913Z
If you want permissionless, you need economic incentives instead of trusted parties. Logging can't provide those, a currency can.
Pieter Wuille
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-23T09:55:47.920Z
For sure, that's why logging is completely different use case here. Permissionless must go with economic incentives and since there are no trusted parties, the blockchain with incentives is the only possibility to enable "who did what when" in a public permissionless environment.
In a permissioned, (private/consortium) chain with trusted parties you could argue that auditable logging or a central audit database might also fit, but I would challenge this since "trust" is not identical to having an common infrastructure and processes you need to set up a central solution.
Ice09
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-23T10:22:56.990Z
In short: having a "currency" (ie. economic incentives) in a blockchain is a fundamental part of permissionless public chains to work, but that's all it is, a basis for other things to build upon and not the key feature of a blockchain. The key feature is the answer to "who did what when" on protocol level. One "implemetation" of this key feature is currency. Another one is voting, "proofing", auditing, timestamping, "who did what when", permission- and trustless.
Ice09
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-23T15:46:06.217Z
You can't pay a miner with timestamps.
Pieter Wuille
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-23T20:29:52.613Z
yes, that's why you pay *for* timestamping, not with.
Ice09
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-23T20:37:39.403Z
I'm not talking about the users of the system, but the incentives of the system itself. Bitcoin is only secure because the subsidy pays miners more than what a fraudster could reasonably pay them to revert transactions. Paying a miner to censor votes, or include fraudulent proofs is trivial otherwise.
Pieter Wuille
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-23T20:56:01.637Z
Timestamping can be done off-chain, with only non-invasive commitments inside an otherwise functioning monetary chain, but won't protect you from having commitments to conflicting data (which is not an issue is all you want to know whether some piece of data existed at a certain point in time). Voting is much harder, as you're essentially letting the highest-paying voters determine what gets included (if miners are behaving rationally). If your chain has no monetary function at all, you can't pay for things, and you can't prevent reorganizations (as those would become cheap).
Pieter Wuille
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-24T21:08:58.410Z
I don't object all this, the only thing which I think is important: the blockchain answers "who did what when". It does this by using economic incentives. Timestamping, voting, proofing, etc. is not difficult at all because miners are not interested in the payload, but in the value of the transaction or what they can earn by including it, which is measured in a cryptocurrency. So that's the infrastructure part of the blockchain and it works pretty well.
Ice09
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-24T21:41:23.417Z
Ah, you want all of this in a blockchain that does have a currency associated. Yes, I agree that it can work, but only as long as these non-financial uses don't interfere with the operation of the currency (and not for example what happened to Namecoin: overcrowded by data storage making it useless as a currency, and thus indirectly killing its security).
Pieter Wuille
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-24T21:44:33.293Z
All of that works fine for pure timestamping (which only needs a hash). I'm not convinced it can work for auditing (needs linearly growing data storage), voting (those who pay most win? seems a bad property), or in general anything that needs identities (as miners can always choose to censor who they don't like - or be paid to do so).
Pieter Wuille
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-21T16:05:19.973Z
2016-11-21T16:05:19.973Z
Ice09
<p>I am newbie to block chain. AFAIK, blockchain is a distributed database that maintains a continuously-growing list of records called blocks secured from tampering and revision.</p>

<p>How does this technology be explained in terms of OSI 7 layer model?</p>

<p>Thx</p>

<p>JT</p>

<blockchain>
How to explain blockchain in terms of OSI 7-layer model? Is it based on service in the transport layer
user42950
# How to explain blockchain in terms of OSI 7-layer model? Is it based on service in the transport layer

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-11-06)

I am newbie to block chain. AFAIK, blockchain is a distributed database that maintains a continuously-growing list of records called blocks secured from tampering and revision.

How does this technology be explained in terms of OSI 7 layer model?

Thx

JT

**Tags:** blockchain


---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2016-11-06. Score: 2

The blockchain is a data structure that every node in the network independently builds, based on messages that are exchanged in a network.

Blockchains don't prescribe what this network protocol looks like. The OSI model is a way to describe layers in a network, not data structures.


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2022-10-09. Score: 0

> **AFAIK, blockchain is a distributed database** [...]

In a *distributed* database there is usually a coordinated distribution of data across nodes such that individual nodes only have a subset. The Bitcoin blockchain is not a distributed database of this sort. There is no coordination and no centrally managed subsetting.

Bitcoin's blockchain is a *replicated* database. Every full node has a complete copy.

> [...] **that maintains a continuously-growing list of records called blocks secured from tampering and revision.**

True. Really it is a list of records of transactions. You can think of blocks as like pages in a transaction journal.

> **How does this technology be explained in terms of OSI 7 layer model?**

It isn't and can't be.

The ISO OSI 7-layer model was mainly associated with the X25 data network. It is obsolete. It does not apply to the Internet which has it's own 4-layer model.

The Bitcoin network protocol is at the application layer in this 4-layer model. It mostly uses TCP at the transport layer and IP at the inter-network layer.

The Bitcoin network protocol allows each Bitcoin node to gossip with a handful of peer nodes in order to exchange data including blockchain data items such as blocks and transactions etc. In this way blockchain data percolates across the planet.


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2016-11-21. Score: 0

This might technically be incorrect, however philosophically it is the only way to explain "the blockchain" without going in this cryptocurrency-"asset/value transfer"-rubbish which really is not what the blockchain is about.

So, lets assume there are 8 layers. The 8. layer is the blockchain layer, its whole purpose is to answer the question

***who did what when***

on protocol level, ie. accessible and available for all like FTP/HTTP (TCP/IP) for data transfer.

Now it should make more sense to you why asset transfer and votings and patents and author's rights and backoffice optimization are all use cases for blockchain technology: "who did what when".

taken from: <https://monax.io/explainers/ecosystem_applications/>

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: To know who did what when, use a log file with auditors. A blockchain does not make things magically immutable - it does so through the use of consensus algorithms among a set of trusted parties (PBFT, private blockchains), or through economic incentives in public (Proof of Work, public network). The latter only works when there is a subsidy to incentivize convergence, something that isn't available for general purpose logs.  
> **username_3**: you are perfectly right for a specific context or environment, eg. a organisation, a company, etc. Then of course auditable logs are the best fit for this and a blockchain doesn't make sense at all. I was thinking of a environment of several parties, probably even in competition, which do not have processes or rules to set up a "auditable log" since there is no admin, no processes, no agreed-upon rules. Then a common "infrastructur component" which answers the question permissionless and decentrally is what you need.  
> **username_1**: If you want permissionless, you need economic incentives instead of trusted parties. Logging can't provide those, a currency can.  
> **username_3**: For sure, that's why logging is completely different use case here. Permissionless must go with economic incentives and since there are no trusted parties, the blockchain with incentives is the only possibility to enable "who did what when" in a public permissionless environment. In a permissioned, (private/consortium) chain with trusted parties you could argue that auditable logging or a central audit database might also fit, but I would challenge this since "trust" is not identical to having an common infrastructure and processes you need to set up a central solution.  
> **username_3**: In short: having a "currency" (ie. economic incentives) in a blockchain is a fundamental part of permissionless public chains to work, but that's all it is, a basis for other things to build upon and not the key feature of a blockchain. The key feature is the answer to "who did what when" on protocol level. One "implemetation" of this key feature is currency. Another one is voting, "proofing", auditing, timestamping, "who did what when", permission- and trustless.  
> **username_1**: You can't pay a miner with timestamps.  
> **username_3**: yes, that's why you pay *for* timestamping, not with.  
> **username_1**: I'm not talking about the users of the system, but the incentives of the system itself. Bitcoin is only secure because the subsidy pays miners more than what a fraudster could reasonably pay them to revert transactions. Paying a miner to censor votes, or include fraudulent proofs is trivial otherwise.  
> **username_1**: Timestamping can be done off-chain, with only non-invasive commitments inside an otherwise functioning monetary chain, but won't protect you from having commitments to conflicting data (which is not an issue is all you want to know whether some piece of data existed at a certain point in time). Voting is much harder, as you're essentially letting the highest-paying voters determine what gets included (if miners are behaving rationally). If your chain has no monetary function at all, you can't pay for things, and you can't prevent reorganizations (as those would become cheap).  
> **username_3**: I don't object all this, the only thing which I think is important: the blockchain answers "who did what when". It does this by using economic incentives. Timestamping, voting, proofing, etc. is not difficult at all because miners are not interested in the payload, but in the value of the transaction or what they can earn by including it, which is measured in a cryptocurrency. So that's the infrastructure part of the blockchain and it works pretty well.  
> **username_1**: Ah, you want all of this in a blockchain that does have a currency associated. Yes, I agree that it can work, but only as long as these non-financial uses don't interfere with the operation of the currency (and not for example what happened to Namecoin: overcrowded by data storage making it useless as a currency, and thus indirectly killing its security).  
> **username_1**: All of that works fine for pure timestamping (which only needs a hash). I'm not convinced it can work for auditing (needs linearly growing data storage), voting (those who pay most win? seems a bad property), or in general anything that needs identities (as miners can always choose to censor who they don't like - or be paid to do so).  

---

