3 ms·

There is literally no point to a “centralised blockchain”.

• davidgerard 9y ago
  I'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 ago
  A 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 ago
    Yes, 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 ago
    They don’t use a Merkel tree. Where did you get that information from?