4 ms·
I don't think that's accurate. If I have a ledger in which every record is signed (along with the previous signature) it's fair to call that a block chain, isn
by danblick 10y ago
I don't think that's accurate. If I have a ledger in which every record is signed (along with the previous signature) it's fair to call that a block chain, isn't it?
Systems based on signatures without proof of work aren't used for digital currency because of the double-spending problem. But I'm not sure if everybody talking about block chains is also talking about digital currencies, are they?
- joosters 10y agoI'd say that a key feature of anything using a 'blockchain' is that there needs to be a way to determine the definitive, actual blockchain. Merely having a chain of signed documents is not enough, you also need a mechanism for trusting this chain of documents over that chain of documents. If you don't have this mechanism, or if your use case doesn't need this mechanism, you probably don't need a blockchain at all, and should just be using a database, as it would be far simpler and more efficient. Once you decide that you need some way of having a single global accepted version of your blockchain, you'll have to work out a way of picking one. Proof of work is one of the ways you can do this.
- brighton36 10y agoIf its fair to call that a blockchain, then git is a blockchain. Pgp signed emails are blockchains. The technology becomes completely uninteresting 80's era innovation.
- pg_is_a_butt 10y agouh... it always was.