3 ms·
The way I view cryptocurrencies is that they're a service like HTTP or SMTP on top of a blockchain, which would be analogous to TCP/IP. Cryptocurrencies are onl
by v64 9y ago
The way I view cryptocurrencies is that they're a service like HTTP or SMTP on top of a blockchain, which would be analogous to TCP/IP. Cryptocurrencies are only one of many uses of blockchains.
I disagree with the notion that a cryptocurrency is a vital property of the distributed nature of blockchains. The purpose they serve now is to incentivize individuals to participate in the network who wouldn't otherwise participate by paying them a currency to represent the value of the service they've provided.
But for instance, you could also have private blockchains where the incentive for running a node is access to that blockchain's data. There does have to be an incentive to run nodes, but it doesn't necessarily have to be monetary.
- CryptoPunk 9y ago>>But for instance, you could also have private blockchains where the incentive for running a node is access to that blockchain's data. That's not a decentralized blockchain. It's the decentralized consensus that is novel. Without decentralization, it's just an append only database.
- v64 9y agoJust because it's private doesn't mean it's decentralized in a protocol sense. The nodes in the private blockchain would still be distrustful of each other and would still undergo decentralized consensus. As for compensation, rather than receiving a coin as a reward for doing proof of work mining, you would gain a key to enable you to read certain encrypted data on the blockchain, for instance.
- CryptoPunk 9y agoWhat you're describing is not an open AND decentralized (however way you want to define 'decentralized') platform, and its applications are much more limited. And your scheme does require some amount of trust. Induction into the consensus node set would need to be controlled to prevent bad actors from disrupting the flow.