Blockchain is a technology in search of a problem to solve, according to a running joke. Although this remark is meant to provoke a sensitive group of fans, there is some truth to it as well.
Since the original blockchain use, Bitcoin, entrepreneurs have come up with dozens of other uses for the technology, which can be thought of as a time-stamped database of transactions distributed among network members.
Blockchain has been used in a variety of industries, from supply chain management to business data protection to identity verification, with various degrees of success. Meanwhile, the advent of (DeFi) has seen blockchain utilised to promote peer-to-peer lending, borrowing, and other similar activities.
Decentralized
Now, a startup named Pingala Software believes it has discovered the next big thing. LedgerMail, advertised as “the world’s first decentralised email service,” was released earlier this year. Users will be free of invasions of privacy, unsafe message transfer methods, and centralised power abuses thanks to the service.
LedgerMail, on the other hand, relieves users of a lot of characteristics of regular email that they would like to preserve. In fact, the differences are so significant that labelling LedgerMail as an email service may be deemed deceptive.
The argument in support
Suraj Malla, VP Marketing and Sales at Pingala, spoke to TechRadar Pro over Zoom and laid out the argument for blockchain-based email.
However, in order to comprehend the advantages, it’s necessary to first comprehend the characteristics that form a public blockchain network:
- Decentralization: No single entity is responsible for greenlighting, verifying and processing transactions (in this context, an exchange of data in the form of an email message).
- Immutability: Once a transaction has been verified by a consensus vote and recorded on-chain, it cannot be altered, deleted or otherwise tampered with.
- Auditability: While network participants can remain anonymous, all transactions are open to public scrutiny.
According to Malla, this mix of traits implies that blockchain is ideally positioned to address each of the major issues with today’s email systems one at a time.
The bulk collecting of email data by companies like Google and Microsoft, for example, is made feasible by the concentration of power and control. “But there is no centralised authority maintaining and regulating your data with LedgerMail,” Malla stated. “This also implies that there is no one point of failure.”
Finally, all message content and attachments are encrypted by LedgerMail, ensuring that only the sender and receiver have access to the information.
Pingala deserves credit for its early success with LedgerMail, which attracted 400,000 users in the first two months, including a number of commercial clients. And, as seen by the expansion of the VPN sector, there is definitely a big demand for solutions that promote data privacy in this way.
The corporation, on the other hand, is only too eager to brush over the flaws in its offering, which are as many and substantial as the problems it is seeking to solve.
The much larger case against
Malla told us that 24,000 emails had been sent using LedgerMail in the previous 24 hours when we met, implying that the platform is quickly gaining popularity. Inadvertently, however, this statement highlighted the first of the LedgerMail system’s key flaws: scalability.
LedgerMail is built on the XinFin blockchain, a proof-of-stake network that borrows from both private and public blockchain traditions. XinFin has a considerably higher throughput than Bitcoin or Ethereum, accomplishing upwards of 2,000 transactions per second, thanks to a number of ingenious design features.
Despite these advancements, the network is still limited to around 173 million transactions per day, or around 0.06 percent of the 319.6 billion emails sent and received in the same time period. Also keep in mind that LedgerMail is required to share XinFin with other blockchain-based services.
The issue of scalability is inextricably linked to a second one: cost. Although signing up for a LedgerMail account is free, sending an email is not. Each exchange of currency or information, like other public blockchain networks, is subject to a transaction charge. This cost incentivizes network participation, which guarantees that a high level of security and redundancy is maintained.
Transaction fees on the XinFin network are extremely cheap; according to Pingala, sending a LedgerMail email costs just 1/800th of a dollar. The value of transaction fees, on the other hand, is directly proportional to the volume of traffic on a network. As a result, in the unlikely event that LedgerMail becomes really popular and customers flood the XinFin network, email will become substantially more expensive (even if the ceiling is one million times lower than on the Ethereum network). Given that just a small percentage of individuals presently pay for the right of sending emails, it’s difficult to see this notion catching on.
However, LedgerMail’s single worst flaw is that it’s a closed-loop mechanism. That is, users may only send messages to those who also have a LedgerMail account, and even then, only if they are on the recipient’s approved contact list.
Email’s longevity is due in part to its accessibility: anybody with an internet connection can set up an email account, and anyone with an email account can communicate with anyone else.
While Pingala has made exceptions to allow users to join up for LedgerMail using an existing email account, an easy sign-up process cannot compensate for the platform’s lack of openness and freedom of expression. Can LedgerMail even be called an email service in this case?
The service that isn’t based on email
After some back-and-forth about the model’s flaws, Pingala creator Vinay Krishna (who was also on the call) finally admitted that LedgerMail isn’t going to be able to replace regular email after all. Rather, it’s a product that individuals may utilise on rare occasions when sending very sensitive information.
“People could still use conventional email for all routine communications that don’t include critical information,” he stated. “However, when consumers want to ensure that information remains private, they’ll utilise LedgerMail.”
In this manner, LedgerMail has more in common with encrypted messaging services like Signal or Telegram (none of which, by the way, require a blockchain) than with Gmail or Yahoo!
Finally, the issues that Pingala is attempting to resolve are genuine. All internet users ought to be safeguarded against Big Tech invasions as well as the army of fraudsters lurking in their inboxes.
However, the company’s proposed solution to these problems is on a microscopic scale; with all of the disclaimers and constraints, LedgerMail won’t even scratch the surface. It’s the most brilliantly awful concept I’ve heard all year.