4 ms·
Private blockchain == glorified database.
by MrBlue 11y ago
Private blockchain == glorified database.
- sanswork 11y agoPublic blockchain == glorified database too. What's your point?
- vidarh 11y agoThe point is that a private blockchain would lose the one thing that a public blockchain is good for: Allowing a distributed network of untrusted peers to cooperate to come to consensus on how to update the glorified database. If your peers are trusted, or can put behind an authenticated, authorising gateway, you don't need a blockchain - you can just use a normal database.
- sneak 11y agoA private blockchain allows a distributed network of arms-length peers to cooperate to come to cryptographically-verifiable consensus about who traded what and in what order - a settlement network. A traditional centralized database doesn't easily allow irrefutability. A blockchain allows one to do this with low trust, as all of the data integrity comes from crypto. Think of it as a database with signed tx records, and countersigned with timestamps for ordering. Any participant can assess the valid state of the world, without all of the hairy distributed database timestamping/integrity issues we all know so well.
- mooneater 11y agothats just git with access controls
- nyan4 11y ago> If your peers are trusted Trust is never a boolean thing - and always a liability.
- sanswork 11y agoIf your peers are trusted you could do that. Or if you can agree on a central authority you could do that. But you are confusing trusted with known. I don't have to trust any given party in a private chain. I just have to trust the network. It's not difficult to come up with a private chain design that makes it very difficult for a malicious party to negatively impact. And you'd still have the immutability, known ordering and decentralisation amongst participants.