> As I understand, DHT is vulnerable to sybil and eclipse attacks
So are blockchains. However, blockchains are much harder to secure, since they need to preserve the order of the ledger (for Bitcoin that's a total-order; there are some chains which only require partial-order). That forces all transactions to jump through hoops, like proof-of-X; even if they're not under attack.
> not really suited to the task of creating a tamper proof log
That's my point; why impose a log (and hence a total-order of events)?
> Users in the network may need to come to consensus about the ordering of events, such as if signed documents A and B are order dependent.
That's a heck of a hypothetical; and it's solvable without baking order-dependence into everything, e.g. we can embed the hash of one document inside another document; or we can provide hashes-of-hashes (Merkle trees), etc.
So are blockchains. However, blockchains are much harder to secure, since they need to preserve the order of the ledger (for Bitcoin that's a total-order; there are some chains which only require partial-order). That forces all transactions to jump through hoops, like proof-of-X; even if they're not under attack.
> not really suited to the task of creating a tamper proof log
That's my point; why impose a log (and hence a total-order of events)?
> Users in the network may need to come to consensus about the ordering of events, such as if signed documents A and B are order dependent.
That's a heck of a hypothetical; and it's solvable without baking order-dependence into everything, e.g. we can embed the hash of one document inside another document; or we can provide hashes-of-hashes (Merkle trees), etc.