3 ms·

This confuses me. What is the point of a blockchain without proof of work and a vast 'mining' network to provide security? Without that it boils down to somet

This confuses me. What is the point of a blockchain without proof of work and a vast 'mining' network to provide security? Without that it boils down to something akin to git. I would love to know more about how their implementation works.

wmf 11y ago
Something akin to git is far better than the existing banking system, although the proponents of "private blockchains" don't seem to be very clear on their threat models.
HappyTypist 11y ago
You can use sidechains and get all the mining proof of work of bitcoin without using the main chain. I'm not sure if that's what they're using however.
sanswork 11y ago
It allows you to have an immutable distributed database with known entry ordering that can be shared between multiple parties.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- mooneater 11y ago
  if its between trusted parties... why not just use git. I dont understand where the innovation is. they seem to have remove the one truly unique feature of bitcoin but continue to call it a blockchain.
  - sanswork 11y ago
    The part you're missing is that it doesn't matter if you understand or even if there is innovation. Why not use git? Because it's not designed for these use cases and it doesn't handle a few of the required features. Seriously the fact that you are asking this says a lot about either your knowledge or honesty of your argument.
webkike 11y ago
The vast mining network is required to prevent a malicious party from double spending. If all the nodes are trusted then you can just assume nodes will not perform fraudulent bahviour
- sanswork 11y ago
  They don't even have to be trusted just known. The mining is to distribute 'fairly' who can create the next block. If you know all the participants round robin works just as well.
- ATsch 11y ago
  is being able to trust the network even with malicious actors not the whole purpose of the blockchain?

wmf 11y ago

Something akin to git is far better than the existing banking system, although the proponents of "private blockchains" don't seem to be very clear on their threat models.

HappyTypist 11y ago

You can use sidechains and get all the mining proof of work of bitcoin without using the main chain. I'm not sure if that's what they're using however.

sanswork 11y ago

It allows you to have an immutable distributed database with known entry ordering that can be shared between multiple parties.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
mooneater 11y ago
if its between trusted parties... why not just use git. I dont understand where the innovation is. they seem to have remove the one truly unique feature of bitcoin but continue to call it a blockchain.
- sanswork 11y ago
  The part you're missing is that it doesn't matter if you understand or even if there is innovation. Why not use git? Because it's not designed for these use cases and it doesn't handle a few of the required features. Seriously the fact that you are asking this says a lot about either your knowledge or honesty of your argument.

webkike 11y ago

The vast mining network is required to prevent a malicious party from double spending. If all the nodes are trusted then you can just assume nodes will not perform fraudulent bahviour

sanswork 11y ago
They don't even have to be trusted just known. The mining is to distribute 'fairly' who can create the next block. If you know all the participants round robin works just as well.
ATsch 11y ago
is being able to trust the network even with malicious actors not the whole purpose of the blockchain?