4 ms·
There's nothing wrong with a centralized blockchain. The central organization can scale the infrastructure much better than something decentralized, with the e
by rando444 9y ago
There's nothing wrong with a centralized blockchain.
The central organization can scale the infrastructure much better than something decentralized, with the end benefit of the blockchain being that the data in it can not be changed like you could if it was just fields in a database.
- chris_wot 9y agoThere is literally no point to a “centralised blockchain”.
- davidgerard 9y agoI'm sure we could use a centralised blockchain! it could use a transaction ledger in a Merkle tree, everything made tamper-evident. You could widely distribute copies of the thing, saying what the hash is, so anyone would know this was the good copy. We need a good name for a software product like that ... something like ... Global ... Information ... Technology. Think that'd work?
- stale2002 9y agoA global public database is still useful. It allows everyone to easily verify the chain. The only centralized part would be the issuing. Blockchain is completely different than a decentralized proof of work algorithm, and I am not sure why everyone always confuses the 2.
- chris_wot 9y agoYes, a global public database would be useful. And you could put it in a Merkel tree. But a blockchain as most people know it includes the nonce that allows for the POW mechanism. If the blockchain was just the transaction ledger, great. But it’s not.
- nokcha 9y ago>There is literally no point to a “centralised blockchain”. Sure there is! E.g., in the SSL Certificate Transparency system, each CA maintains a certificate log that is essentially a blockchain. And even in the context of cryptocurrency, a centralized blockchain at least prevents the central authority from secretly issuing currency and lying about how much has been issued.
- chris_wot 9y agoThey don’t use a Merkel tree. Where did you get that information from?