3 ms·

I'm unclear how this is any different from a centralized mongodb as a service platform. It seems that it doesn't offer any proof of work related security or con

by snissn 9y ago

I'm unclear how this is any different from a centralized mongodb as a service platform. It seems that it doesn't offer any proof of work related security or consensus building other than a centralized "trust our cluster" policy [1]. [1] https://docs.bigchaindb.com/en/latest/bft.html https://docs.bigchaindb.com/en/latest/bft.html

misterdata 9y ago
Not sure whether BigchainDB implements consensus/PoW, but my attempt at building a blockchain-based database sure does. [1] Scaling a solution like that however is very difficult, and I can imagine BigchainDB aiming for applications where consensus/PoW is less needed. [1] https://github.com/pixelspark/catena https://github.com/pixelspark/catena
- trentmc 9y ago
  I'm sure you know this but I will clarify for readers: PoW is only one consensus algorithm. Consensus algorithms go back decades. They're powering all the distributed DBs, file systems, etc that power the web. Some are fault tolerant (eg Paxos), some add in Byzantine tolerance (eg PBFT), some add in Sybil tolerance (eg PoW). > Not sure whether BigchainDB implements consensus/PoW It has a 2-layer consensus algorithm. (See a comment above, or BigchainDB docs.) It does not use PoW because PoW is inefficient; BigchainDB doesn't target applications needing Sybil tolerance.
  - trentmc 9y ago
    I should also mention that we've been working on supporting a BFT option. It should be out in the next release or two. https://github.com/bigchaindb/bigchaindb/blob/master/docs/root/source/bft.md https://github.com/bigchaindb/bigchaindb/blob/master/docs/ro...
trentmc 9y ago
Hi, it's Trent here, I'm CTO at BigchainDB. BigchainDB targets giving the following benefits beyond traditional database as a service: 1. decentralized - no single entity controls it, which means tolerant to malicious / Byzantine faults. Benefit: groups that don't necessarily trust each other can share infrastructure. 2. immutable - which practically speaking means more tamper resistant, e.g. it's append only. Benefit: well-defined provenance for history of assets, data, etc. 3. assets - you can create and issue assets, where you own them if you have the private key. How: each tx is signed. Benefit: moving around assets on a substrate that no single entity owns or controls. Lower friction in exchanges. And the digital signatures gives cryptographic proof that about who did what. These are the targets. We're not fully there yet. Most notably, we still need to address some Byzantine faults as our docs ([1] above) mention. This will come in an upcoming release. We are also working on improved scalability while maintaining the security guarantees [2]. Re consensus: BigchainDB has a two-layer consensus, as follows. * The lower layer directly uses MongoDB's consensus (which it builds on) to agree on whether a transaction should be stored. * The higher level has federation-style voting on whether a transaction is valid or not. Our documentation describes this further. BigchainDB is explicitly not trying to do Bitcoin-style proof of work. PoW solves for an additional problem: (theoretical) anonymity of servers. That additional goal compromises scale. And, in practice you know who's running the servers anyway (ie big Chinese Bitcoin miners), which is why I say "theoretical". BTW I am a fan of Bitcoin, it just has different goals than BigchainDB. [2] https://blog.bigchaindb.com/bigchaindb-developer-update-2d329b055d4a https://blog.bigchaindb.com/bigchaindb-developer-update-2d32...
- willitpamp573 9y ago
  How is this different from Mysql with sharding+encryption?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - trentmc 9y ago
    Neither sharding nor encryption give "decentralized", "immutable", or "assets". E.g. how many sysadmins can MySQL have? (And the answer is 1. Hence, not decentralized.)

by snissn 9y ago

misterdata 9y ago

Not sure whether BigchainDB implements consensus/PoW, but my attempt at building a blockchain-based database sure does. [1] Scaling a solution like that however is very difficult, and I can imagine BigchainDB aiming for applications where consensus/PoW is less needed. [1] https://github.com/pixelspark/catena https://github.com/pixelspark/catena

trentmc 9y ago
I'm sure you know this but I will clarify for readers: PoW is only one consensus algorithm. Consensus algorithms go back decades. They're powering all the distributed DBs, file systems, etc that power the web. Some are fault tolerant (eg Paxos), some add in Byzantine tolerance (eg PBFT), some add in Sybil tolerance (eg PoW). > Not sure whether BigchainDB implements consensus/PoW It has a 2-layer consensus algorithm. (See a comment above, or BigchainDB docs.) It does not use PoW because PoW is inefficient; BigchainDB doesn't target applications needing Sybil tolerance.
- trentmc 9y ago
  I should also mention that we've been working on supporting a BFT option. It should be out in the next release or two. https://github.com/bigchaindb/bigchaindb/blob/master/docs/root/source/bft.md https://github.com/bigchaindb/bigchaindb/blob/master/docs/ro...

trentmc 9y ago

Hi, it's Trent here, I'm CTO at BigchainDB. BigchainDB targets giving the following benefits beyond traditional database as a service: 1. decentralized - no single entity controls it, which means tolerant to malicious / Byzantine faults. Benefit: groups that don't necessarily trust each other can share infrastructure. 2. immutable - which practically speaking means more tamper resistant, e.g. it's append only. Benefit: well-defined provenance for history of assets, data, etc. 3. assets - you can create and issue assets, where you own them if you have the private key. How: each tx is signed. Benefit: moving around assets on a substrate that no single entity owns or controls. Lower friction in exchanges. And the digital signatures gives cryptographic proof that about who did what. These are the targets. We're not fully there yet. Most notably, we still need to address some Byzantine faults as our docs ([1] above) mention. This will come in an upcoming release. We are also working on improved scalability while maintaining the security guarantees [2]. Re consensus: BigchainDB has a two-layer consensus, as follows. * The lower layer directly uses MongoDB's consensus (which it builds on) to agree on whether a transaction should be stored. * The higher level has federation-style voting on whether a transaction is valid or not. Our documentation describes this further. BigchainDB is explicitly not trying to do Bitcoin-style proof of work. PoW solves for an additional problem: (theoretical) anonymity of servers. That additional goal compromises scale. And, in practice you know who's running the servers anyway (ie big Chinese Bitcoin miners), which is why I say "theoretical". BTW I am a fan of Bitcoin, it just has different goals than BigchainDB. [2] https://blog.bigchaindb.com/bigchaindb-developer-update-2d329b055d4a https://blog.bigchaindb.com/bigchaindb-developer-update-2d32...

willitpamp573 9y ago
How is this different from Mysql with sharding+encryption?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- trentmc 9y ago
  Neither sharding nor encryption give "decentralized", "immutable", or "assets". E.g. how many sysadmins can MySQL have? (And the answer is 1. Hence, not decentralized.)