3 ms·
Of course you can delete, just create a new DB and insert the records except the ones you don't want. If you want to have integrity control, you can use digita
by MichaelGG 8y ago
Of course you can delete, just create a new DB and insert the records except the ones you don't want.
If you want to have integrity control, you can use digital signatures without blockchain.
If all you're trying to fix is making it hard to issue a DELETE statement, then make it easier to set permissions. Which isn't really hard in any mainstream database...
It seems like this is a log, which might work better, although existing RDBMS already have high performance versioning/change tracking.
- prepend 8y agoYou can only delete up to the last point you synchronized. So once your record gets onto any other node, then it becomes harder and harder with more nodes to delete or change. Regardless of root/permissions/whatever. Of course you can use signatures as you basically start recreating blockchain at that point (eg, each transaction is signed and linked to the previous; then connected with other nodes doing the same thing. A change to any segment would be detectable, etc etc). Basically, it is just a distributed log that removes any change for changing data and the inability to set any permissions to remove data. Maybe I’m being dense, but please let me know of any mainstream databases that give this functionality without relying on permissions to insure integrity. If an admin is able to change data, then that won’t work in my use case.
- MichaelGG 8y agoDefine "synchronized". If you already have a way for nodes to determine something was valid as of a certain set of data and time, you've already solved it.
- emmelaich 8y agoI guess it means no undetectable delete. Like Git. You can copy it, filter-branch it. But if something is deleted the hash will be different.