- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/27501204
You must log in or register to comment.
Distributed blockchains are useful when all of the below are fulfilled:
- Need for distributed ledger
- Peers are adversarial w.r.t. contents of transactions in the ledger
- Enough peers exist so that no group can become a majority and thus assume control
- No trusted central authority exists
Here, we have a single peer creating entries in a ledger. We can get away with a copy of the ledger and one or more trusted timestamping authorities.
I didn’t say distributed. You are absolutely correct though. I was more observing that of all the BS tech bro babble that our Oligarch in Chief could spew into the universe, blockchain would be one that could be implemented reasonably.
If your blockchain isn’t distributed, it doesn’t need to be a blockchain, because then you already have trust established.
There are actually other comments on this thread that provide other benefits besides trust, like modification tracing. There is more to it than just trust.
You mean a transparency log? Just sign and publish. Or if it’s confidential, have a timestamp authority sign it, but what’s the point of a confidential blockchain? Sure, we han have a string of hashes chained together á la git, but that’s just an implementation detail. Where does the trust come from, who does the audit? That’s the interesting part.
Obviously all good questions that those much more informed should weigh in on. I know just enough about blockchain to recognize reasonable vs scam uses for, but I also know enough to not Dunning Kruger the topic.
