3 ms·
OK, now I think I see your point. Either you're agreeing that you could stick proof of work into a more conventional database (not sure if that's what you mean
by sowbug 8y ago
OK, now I think I see your point.
Either you're agreeing that you could stick proof of work into a more conventional database (not sure if that's what you mean by "You can impose a similar set of rules in any alternative solution, blockchain or not"), or you don't think the self-validating nature of a proof-of-work blockchain is interesting.
The alternative solution you describe in your first paragraph still has the flaw that a nation-state could delete all known copies of the real national database, publish a new one, and say "Here's the national git log. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia." Someone finds a backup copy of the original and publishes it. Now, determining which one is right is basically a question of whoever shouts louder. There's nothing inherently better or worse about the fake log compared to the real one, since both follow the rules; it's a question of who you believe.
In a blockchain solution, on the other hand, the nation-state would have to say "here's the real blockchain," but either the amount of work required to produce the fake one was more than the work required to produce the real one (in which case congratulations, they win), or else it's self-disproving. Nobody has to argue whether the real one's real, because the real one by definition has the most work put into it. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, your example alternative solution doesn't have that important feature.
Myanmar obliterated all traces of the Rohingya, razing their villages, rebuilding entirely different structures on those locations, and then claiming that the Rohingya burned down their own homes and voluntarily left the country (listen to https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/podcasts/the-daily/myanmar-rohingya-muslims-rakhine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/podcasts/the-daily/myanma... for more). It's completely within the threat model of this situation that a nation-state might want to rewrite its identity database and deny that it ever happened.
Sorry if I'm still somehow talking past you.
- rlpb 8y ago> Now, determining which one is right is basically a question of whoever shouts louder... It's completely within the threat model of this situation that a nation-state might want to rewrite its identity database and deny that it ever happened. This was a solved problem before Bitcoin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_timestamping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_timestamping Now that Bitcoin exists, you don't need to trust a third party for trusted timestamping any more; you can insert hashes into an existing (stronger) blockchain instead. I accept this is technically "blockchain" in that case, but I wouldn't really call it "blockchain technology" or "turning to blockchain" and there's no need to reinvent a new blockchain with all the risks that entail. Take my git repository and add a rule that to be considered valid by a client an authority must have inserted the commit hash (or a child commit hash) into the Bitcoin blockchain. If an alternate branch appears, the earliest appearance wins. You get the property you're looking for, but you don't need to invent a whole new system to do it. Bitcoin (or any blockchain) isn't required; any trusted timestamp service will do instead. If you don't want to use a third party, then sure, use Bitcoin, but no need to invent anything new. I argue that this is far better than "turning to blockchain". All the components are well understood. There is no risk in this model.