3 ms·
I don't really understand these kinds of initiatives that say they will use "blockchain technology", but seem to imply that they won't use the bitcoin blockchai
by cjg 11y ago
I don't really understand these kinds of initiatives that say they will use "blockchain technology", but seem to imply that they won't use the bitcoin blockchain.
It's the amount of computing power that keeps a blockchain secure and an independent blockchain has no hope of reaching the same level of hashing as the bitcoin blockchain.
It's the question of how their technology will interact with the bitcoin blockchain to leverage that hashing power that I'm interested in.
Or perhaps they could just be happy with a blockchain that might be (relatively) easy to attack.
- lifeisstillgood 11y agoSurely we can adjust the protocol to say "has found 8 0's and signed the value with one of these private keys". Attacks become based around the security of those keys - as its a private chain anyway, do we mind?
- steckerbrett 11y agoWhy bother with it at all? Authenticated database sounds like.. postgres.
- anon1mous 11y agoBecause it's distributed (NasDaq going bankrupt won't kill it) and all changes are in the open (no rogue employee stealing your shares). Sure you can achieve more or less the same thing with a relational DB or by drawing sticks on a piece of papyrus.
- RemoteWorker 11y agoSo you think Bitcoin is the first distributed database? No. There is no reason for a private blockchain to exist; it's a nonsensical idea.
- lifeisstillgood 11y agoThis seems to be a case of "you don't understand" - what sources / reading would you suggest covers this issue ?