4 ms·
A blockchain, of sorts...
by frandroid 10y ago
A blockchain, of sorts...
- valarauca1 10y agoBlockchains can do this. But they create relatively absurd systems of who can/can't send messages based on how much they've mined. Block chains are HORRIBLE for encrypted messaging. Since your message is PERMANENTLY part of the chain. So if a encryption is broken, or your password gets leaked. ANYONE can read your messages. In most cases a DHT is far simpler. But naturally some nodes can be evil and log metadata. This is just a risk, but it also exists in block chains. Furthermore DHT's are lower latency then block-chains. Blockchains aren't a magic fix all solution for network consistency/privacy models. Outside of currency transactions it is a horrible distributed system model.
- retox 10y agoThis trend of proposing a blockchain to solve every problem is hilarious to me. Hammer/nail syndrome.
- erichocean 10y ago> Hammer/nail syndrome. Blockchains address that problem too.
- indolering 10y agoBitcoin: the slowest, most expensive key/value store in history.
- valarauca1 10y agoAlso if you look at it in terms of the CAP Theorem: Consistency (every read receives the most recent write or an error): Not True for block chains. All reads are dirty. The further back in time you go the higher the probability the read isn't dirty. Availability (every request receives a response, without guarantee that it contains the most recent version of the information): 100% true. Partition tolerance (the system continues to operate despite arbitrary partitioning due to network failures): Yes the system will continue to function. But you can suffer data loss when the partition is healed.
- TeMPOraL 10y agoSorta, but not. The only similarity would be that you download global state. But you could continously throw that state away if you don't need archiving of messages / long history.