3 ms·

True, but decentralized databases (where all nodes are trusted) were already invented long before bitcoin came along. You do not need a blockchain if all actors

True, but decentralized databases (where all nodes are trusted) were already invented long before bitcoin came along. You do not need a blockchain if all actors are trusted.

bduerst 11y ago
For perfect trust, sure, but amongst competitors in a same market space you would think that it's more 'imperfect' trust, even with contracts. If the transactions are small and numerous, it would seem easier to maintain a block chain ledger than managing multiple write points and masters for a decentralized database. I'm not saying it's concrete, but it would be an interesting experiment at least.
- CydeWeys 11y ago
  How do you determine who gets to participate in this separate blockchain? Can anyone join? Or are there barriers to entry? Because if there are barriers to entry, then you've now created a single centralized authority that issues these keys, and you thus don't really have a decentralized system at all. If each participant individually judges the merits of other participants, then everything will quickly diverge as some blocks are accepted by some participants but not by others, and the whole network collapses into forks.
  - bduerst 11y ago
    There are barriers to entry, for the miners - that's the whole point of having a closed block chain. Nodes and addresses could be open depending on the hypothetical. Mass decentralization is only a selling point for Bitcoin, but even then the Bitcoin organization (who controls the code) has authority to push a hard fork on the miners. They won't do it obviously (e.g. increase block size), because it would alienate their user base. Miner validation can be controlled by the same organization in charge of the code, which isn't aligned with any one competitor in the industry.
    - CydeWeys 11y ago
      The only barrier to entry for a Bitcoin miner is that you have to have an Internet connection and a computer. That is completely decentralized; anyone can buy a computer and Internet access. I don't understand your point. Surely any system you were proposing would require that as well. Your comment was talking about a blockchain amongst "organizations in an industry that validate transactions amongst each other". That seems like it would require a barrier to entry to me, namely, that you would have to validate to someone that you were actually so-and-so organization in so-and-so industry. Can you more fully flesh out your proposal? I'm seeing additional barriers to entry, requiring centralization, that Bitcoin does not have. In practice you probably want a special purpose computer that is GOOD at calculating SHA256 hashes. But anyone can acquire these without limitation or restriction.
      - bduerst 11y ago
        Hard forks push changes to the protocol from a centralized location, namely the bitcoin organization. You know how hard forks work, right? It's not a "vs. bitcoin" comparison... just an example of how organizations in an industry would use block chain to store numerous small transactions, instead of a decentralized database.
        CydeWeys 11y ago
        You keep deflecting and not answering my questions and it's getting really annoying. I'm not going to keep responding to all of your tangents when you can't even address a single one of my points. Please respond to what I've been saying in a relevant manner, then I'll respond to your other stuff.
        bduerst 11y ago
        I've been telling you that you're making the wrong assumptions about blockchain applications because you're assuming it has to be based on bitcoin designs. Again, a closed blockchain doesn't require it to be open to the public for miners. If you're getting frustrated and think that is deflecting then it's possible you have a cognitive bias.
  - to3m 11y ago
    You don't have to have forks. When there is no agreement, the network can just stop working. Some might think that a bit useless, but when you're trying to reach agreement it is in many respects a lot better than a fork...
    - CydeWeys 11y ago
      But then anyone can trivially shut down the network by submitting a single invalid block. The very first bit of abuse and everything is shut down and stops working indefinitely. How could this design serve a useful purpose? It seems a lot less useful than the way Bitcoin does it.
      - to3m 11y ago
        But who's going to abuse it? Why would it shut down indefinitely? This is a group of people or entities that has decided to do this. Presumably they all feel it's in their interests to make it work. Same as with any mutual agreement of this kind, if there's some kind of a falling-out, they'll probably just figure it out somehow. (As for invalid blocks - in the absence of a bug in the code that runs the system, all validators will say no to the invalid block(s), so there's no disagreement, and things carry on.)
        CydeWeys 11y ago
        So now we're back to having trusted parties only, and you thus have centralization, and don't need a blockchain at all. You just need signed transactions among trusted peers. We keep going round in circles.
        to3m 11y ago
        It's only centralized from the point of view of somebody who isn't involved. Those who are involved most likely won't see it as such - since if they did, they'd have chosen some other mechanism. They don't need to trust one another.

True, but decentralized databases (where all nodes are trusted) were already invented long before bitcoin came along. You do not need a blockchain if all actors are trusted.

bduerst 11y ago

For perfect trust, sure, but amongst competitors in a same market space you would think that it's more 'imperfect' trust, even with contracts. If the transactions are small and numerous, it would seem easier to maintain a block chain ledger than managing multiple write points and masters for a decentralized database. I'm not saying it's concrete, but it would be an interesting experiment at least.

CydeWeys 11y ago
How do you determine who gets to participate in this separate blockchain? Can anyone join? Or are there barriers to entry? Because if there are barriers to entry, then you've now created a single centralized authority that issues these keys, and you thus don't really have a decentralized system at all. If each participant individually judges the merits of other participants, then everything will quickly diverge as some blocks are accepted by some participants but not by others, and the whole network collapses into forks.
- bduerst 11y ago
  There are barriers to entry, for the miners - that's the whole point of having a closed block chain. Nodes and addresses could be open depending on the hypothetical. Mass decentralization is only a selling point for Bitcoin, but even then the Bitcoin organization (who controls the code) has authority to push a hard fork on the miners. They won't do it obviously (e.g. increase block size), because it would alienate their user base. Miner validation can be controlled by the same organization in charge of the code, which isn't aligned with any one competitor in the industry.
  - CydeWeys 11y ago
    The only barrier to entry for a Bitcoin miner is that you have to have an Internet connection and a computer. That is completely decentralized; anyone can buy a computer and Internet access. I don't understand your point. Surely any system you were proposing would require that as well. Your comment was talking about a blockchain amongst "organizations in an industry that validate transactions amongst each other". That seems like it would require a barrier to entry to me, namely, that you would have to validate to someone that you were actually so-and-so organization in so-and-so industry. Can you more fully flesh out your proposal? I'm seeing additional barriers to entry, requiring centralization, that Bitcoin does not have. In practice you probably want a special purpose computer that is GOOD at calculating SHA256 hashes. But anyone can acquire these without limitation or restriction.
    - bduerst 11y ago
      Hard forks push changes to the protocol from a centralized location, namely the bitcoin organization. You know how hard forks work, right? It's not a "vs. bitcoin" comparison... just an example of how organizations in an industry would use block chain to store numerous small transactions, instead of a decentralized database.
      - CydeWeys 11y ago
        You keep deflecting and not answering my questions and it's getting really annoying. I'm not going to keep responding to all of your tangents when you can't even address a single one of my points. Please respond to what I've been saying in a relevant manner, then I'll respond to your other stuff.
        bduerst 11y ago
        I've been telling you that you're making the wrong assumptions about blockchain applications because you're assuming it has to be based on bitcoin designs. Again, a closed blockchain doesn't require it to be open to the public for miners. If you're getting frustrated and think that is deflecting then it's possible you have a cognitive bias.
- to3m 11y ago
  You don't have to have forks. When there is no agreement, the network can just stop working. Some might think that a bit useless, but when you're trying to reach agreement it is in many respects a lot better than a fork...
  - CydeWeys 11y ago
    But then anyone can trivially shut down the network by submitting a single invalid block. The very first bit of abuse and everything is shut down and stops working indefinitely. How could this design serve a useful purpose? It seems a lot less useful than the way Bitcoin does it.
    - to3m 11y ago
      But who's going to abuse it? Why would it shut down indefinitely? This is a group of people or entities that has decided to do this. Presumably they all feel it's in their interests to make it work. Same as with any mutual agreement of this kind, if there's some kind of a falling-out, they'll probably just figure it out somehow. (As for invalid blocks - in the absence of a bug in the code that runs the system, all validators will say no to the invalid block(s), so there's no disagreement, and things carry on.)
      - CydeWeys 11y ago
        So now we're back to having trusted parties only, and you thus have centralization, and don't need a blockchain at all. You just need signed transactions among trusted peers. We keep going round in circles.
        to3m 11y ago
        It's only centralized from the point of view of somebody who isn't involved. Those who are involved most likely won't see it as such - since if they did, they'd have chosen some other mechanism. They don't need to trust one another.