6 ms·

it's kind of annoying how people abuse the term "blockchain" nowadays whenever there's something remotely close to distributed systems. "Distributed Ledger wit

it's kind of annoying how people abuse the term "blockchain" nowadays whenever there's something remotely close to distributed systems. "Distributed Ledger without the Blockchain" is just a distributed database, which has been possible forever. Check out couchdb/pouchdb, etc. The innovation of Bitcoin's blockchain was that it introduced distributed ledger that didn't require centralized trust. If you take that way, you're just a database no matter how you try to spin it. This is like saying "We've built orange juice without the orange!" Yeah, you've built bottled water.

wmf 9y ago
But what if bottled water is what people actually want even though they're asking for Brawndo?
- cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
  Most people in IT already know what distributed databases are. They don't want a distributed database. They want blockchain and nothing else. The only reason they want it is because it's something they don't understand, and they naively hope that it will help them somehow. But they already understand what a distributed db is and know they don't need it. Which means people will not suddenly start using FaunaDB just because they try to spin it as an alternative to blockchain. people may not yet have full understanding of the implications of the blockchain but they're not idiots.
jchanimal 9y ago
FaunaDB’s consistency model is very different than CouchDB. (Disclosure, I’m one of the early contributors to CouchDB and work at Fauna.) More about the FaunaDB consistency model here. https://fauna.com/blog/consistent-transactions-in-a-globally-distributed-database https://fauna.com/blog/consistent-transactions-in-a-globally...
- cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
  Does it matter in the context of this comment thread? I'm sure you guys have built a damn good bottled water, but it ain't orange juice.
  - jchanimal 9y ago
    Yes. The point of the post is that with global ACID, distributed ledgers among trusted parties are just regular applications. You can’t do this with eventually consistent databases. What I’m describing is a genuine solution our customers are choosing FaunaDB for. For their distributed ledger requirements, a blockchain is overkill.
    - eternalban 9y ago
      And the point of the GP was that that does not address the OP point that it is "just a distributed database"
      - jchanimal 9y ago
        A distributed database with global consistency, which is a new category. FaunaDB (and similar databases) allows a distributed ledger among trusted parties to be “just a database application.”
        hossbeast 9y ago
        Great. Just take the word blockchain out of the article, it adds nothing but confusion.
        epistasis 9y ago
        I disagree, with the number of people pushing blockchain when they just want a distributed ledger, an article like this is quite helpful.
        userpass 9y ago
        So you're telling me... it's a distributed database? Global consistency is nothing new.
- shub 9y ago
  How does FaunaDB guarantee that all partitions of a transaction commit or abort? The Calvin paper just says "see here for our distributed pessimistic locks that make this not a problem" but if FaunaDB uses oplocks then that doesn't apply.
  - freels 9y ago
    In FaunaDB all transaction resolution is deterministic. Once global log order is determined, partitions will wait for the transaction inputs at the correct version and will each independently come up with an identical result.
    - shub 9y ago
      So the input log isn't partitioned? I'm going off of https://fauna.com/blog/consistent-transactions-in-a-globally-distributed-database https://fauna.com/blog/consistent-transactions-in-a-globally... which states > Each database has a single partitioned RAFT-replicated log that is used to derive a total order of all transaction effects, and that handles all cross-region network communication. But if each partition knows about all the reads in a transaction and verifies all the timestamps, that sounds workable. Not that I'm in any way qualified to pass judgment on something like this, but I feel like I have a little bit of understanding. Overall it sounds really cool and the idea of agreeing on inputs instead of outputs is tremendously clever.
      - freels 9y ago
        Admittedly, the specific mechanics of how the log interacts with data partitions was glossed over a bit in that post. However, to answer your question, the input log is partitioned: Transactions for each epoch are striped across the log partitions. A data partition will need to read a batch from each log partition in order to be able to process the transactions for any given epoch.
legulere 9y ago
You still need to trust the software developers and the miners.
- cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
  That's not what 'trust' means in the context of cryptocurrencies.
- troymc 9y ago
  Actually, you don't have to trust all of them. Some miners can go rogue and it won't matter; everything will still work. The software of blockchains is almost always open source, so you don't have to blindly trust it either; reading the source code and checking it for problems it is always an option.
KirinDave 9y ago
And to that sentiment, blockchains are neither new nor interesting. Most developers have been using them daily for close to 7-10 years. It is unfortunate that this tech is so hyped.
- cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
  I think this is because people mean different things when they talk about "blockchains". it is not interesting if we just see it as some glorified chunked linked list using cryptography. However it IS a novel new piece of technology if we don't define it as that but instead see it for what it actually is. Blockchain is interesting because it uses that chunked linked list data structure to create distributed consensus. So it's unfair to just isolate the data structure on its own and say it's not interesting or novel. It's only because it used that sort of data structure and applied it to consensus mechanism that it became interesting, and that's what blockchain is. Which is why I think this headline is ridiculous.
  - dozzie 9y ago
    > Blockchain is interesting because it uses that chunked linked list data structure to create distributed consensus. Bullshit. Blockchain does not build distributed consensus, it's a totally different thing: document timestamping service. > So it's unfair to just isolate the data structure on its own and say it's not interesting or novel. The only thing novel in document timestamping service called blockchain is that it doesn't need trusted third party. That's all. Other than that, we had cryptographic timestamping protocols for some time already.
    - cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
      > Bullshit. Hey, be nice. > Blockchain does not build distributed consensus, it's a totally different thing: document timestamping service. i think you missed the part where i said "I think this is because people mean different things when they talk about "blockchains"." If that's what you think it is, suit yourself. Not a fan of word-play game. > The only thing novel in document timestamping service called blockchain is that it doesn't need trusted third party. Yeah, that's what I said. Like you said, it IS novel.

wmf 9y ago

But what if bottled water is what people actually want even though they're asking for Brawndo?

cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
Most people in IT already know what distributed databases are. They don't want a distributed database. They want blockchain and nothing else. The only reason they want it is because it's something they don't understand, and they naively hope that it will help them somehow. But they already understand what a distributed db is and know they don't need it. Which means people will not suddenly start using FaunaDB just because they try to spin it as an alternative to blockchain. people may not yet have full understanding of the implications of the blockchain but they're not idiots.

jchanimal 9y ago

FaunaDB’s consistency model is very different than CouchDB. (Disclosure, I’m one of the early contributors to CouchDB and work at Fauna.) More about the FaunaDB consistency model here. https://fauna.com/blog/consistent-transactions-in-a-globally-distributed-database https://fauna.com/blog/consistent-transactions-in-a-globally...

cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
Does it matter in the context of this comment thread? I'm sure you guys have built a damn good bottled water, but it ain't orange juice.
- jchanimal 9y ago
  Yes. The point of the post is that with global ACID, distributed ledgers among trusted parties are just regular applications. You can’t do this with eventually consistent databases. What I’m describing is a genuine solution our customers are choosing FaunaDB for. For their distributed ledger requirements, a blockchain is overkill.
  - eternalban 9y ago
    And the point of the GP was that that does not address the OP point that it is "just a distributed database"
    - jchanimal 9y ago
      A distributed database with global consistency, which is a new category. FaunaDB (and similar databases) allows a distributed ledger among trusted parties to be “just a database application.”
      - hossbeast 9y ago
        Great. Just take the word blockchain out of the article, it adds nothing but confusion.
        epistasis 9y ago
        I disagree, with the number of people pushing blockchain when they just want a distributed ledger, an article like this is quite helpful.
      - userpass 9y ago
        So you're telling me... it's a distributed database? Global consistency is nothing new.
shub 9y ago
How does FaunaDB guarantee that all partitions of a transaction commit or abort? The Calvin paper just says "see here for our distributed pessimistic locks that make this not a problem" but if FaunaDB uses oplocks then that doesn't apply.
- freels 9y ago
  In FaunaDB all transaction resolution is deterministic. Once global log order is determined, partitions will wait for the transaction inputs at the correct version and will each independently come up with an identical result.
  - shub 9y ago
    So the input log isn't partitioned? I'm going off of https://fauna.com/blog/consistent-transactions-in-a-globally-distributed-database https://fauna.com/blog/consistent-transactions-in-a-globally... which states > Each database has a single partitioned RAFT-replicated log that is used to derive a total order of all transaction effects, and that handles all cross-region network communication. But if each partition knows about all the reads in a transaction and verifies all the timestamps, that sounds workable. Not that I'm in any way qualified to pass judgment on something like this, but I feel like I have a little bit of understanding. Overall it sounds really cool and the idea of agreeing on inputs instead of outputs is tremendously clever.
    - freels 9y ago
      Admittedly, the specific mechanics of how the log interacts with data partitions was glossed over a bit in that post. However, to answer your question, the input log is partitioned: Transactions for each epoch are striped across the log partitions. A data partition will need to read a batch from each log partition in order to be able to process the transactions for any given epoch.

legulere 9y ago

You still need to trust the software developers and the miners.

cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
That's not what 'trust' means in the context of cryptocurrencies.
troymc 9y ago
Actually, you don't have to trust all of them. Some miners can go rogue and it won't matter; everything will still work. The software of blockchains is almost always open source, so you don't have to blindly trust it either; reading the source code and checking it for problems it is always an option.

KirinDave 9y ago

And to that sentiment, blockchains are neither new nor interesting. Most developers have been using them daily for close to 7-10 years. It is unfortunate that this tech is so hyped.

cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
I think this is because people mean different things when they talk about "blockchains". it is not interesting if we just see it as some glorified chunked linked list using cryptography. However it IS a novel new piece of technology if we don't define it as that but instead see it for what it actually is. Blockchain is interesting because it uses that chunked linked list data structure to create distributed consensus. So it's unfair to just isolate the data structure on its own and say it's not interesting or novel. It's only because it used that sort of data structure and applied it to consensus mechanism that it became interesting, and that's what blockchain is. Which is why I think this headline is ridiculous.
- dozzie 9y ago
  > Blockchain is interesting because it uses that chunked linked list data structure to create distributed consensus. Bullshit. Blockchain does not build distributed consensus, it's a totally different thing: document timestamping service. > So it's unfair to just isolate the data structure on its own and say it's not interesting or novel. The only thing novel in document timestamping service called blockchain is that it doesn't need trusted third party. That's all. Other than that, we had cryptographic timestamping protocols for some time already.
  - cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
    > Bullshit. Hey, be nice. > Blockchain does not build distributed consensus, it's a totally different thing: document timestamping service. i think you missed the part where i said "I think this is because people mean different things when they talk about "blockchains"." If that's what you think it is, suit yourself. Not a fan of word-play game. > The only thing novel in document timestamping service called blockchain is that it doesn't need trusted third party. Yeah, that's what I said. Like you said, it IS novel.