4 ms·

It's a good time to point out that "permissioned" blockchain does not have to mean a "private" blockchain. While the validator nodes may be a whitelisted group,

It's a good time to point out that "permissioned" blockchain does not have to mean a "private" blockchain. While the validator nodes may be a whitelisted group, anonymous users can still be allowed to run observer nodes. This is the approach the erstwhile InterPlanetary database was planning to take. IPDB shut down earlier this year. Some of us really wanted this so we're setting up an Ethereum-compatible, permissioned+public blockchain called Indium.Network: https://indium.network/ https://indium.network/

berkes 8y ago
Honestly curious what that solves, and how that would work. If it is permissioned, does that not essentially mean its write-side is "private"? What can an observer now do in case the whitelisted entities decide to change history, other than tweeting about it? I'd argue that if the observer now has power to eject the rogue entity/ies from their power, it is a public system. Just via a separate layer. And if it is permissioned, does that not automatically mean it is centralized?
- dboreham 8y ago
  >If it is permissioned, does that not essentially mean its write-side is "private"? Not parent, but yes. >And if it is permissioned, does that not automatically mean it is centralized? That depends on your definition of centralized: if you mean "under the control of humans" then yes it does. If you mean "under the control of one human" than no it doesn't. For example a common approach is to designate a set of institutions (e.g. not for profit foundations in several different countries) to be in control of the validating nodes. Under that model a quorum of those institutions would need to be subverted in order to censor transactions.
  - berkes 8y ago
    I consider a consortium of individuals "centralized". At least not "decentralized".
  - mathnmusic 8y ago
    Yes, "non-profits with political, jurisdictional, legal diversity" is pretty much the approach we plan to take. In fact, to begin with we'll be borrowing from Sovrin (decentralized identity)'s governance model.
lalaland1125 8y ago
> It's a good time to point out that "permissioned" blockchain does not have to mean a "private" blockchain. While the validator nodes may be a whitelisted group, anonymous users can still be allowed to run observer nodes. So I guess that means certificate transparency is a "blockchain"?

berkes 8y ago

Honestly curious what that solves, and how that would work. If it is permissioned, does that not essentially mean its write-side is "private"? What can an observer now do in case the whitelisted entities decide to change history, other than tweeting about it? I'd argue that if the observer now has power to eject the rogue entity/ies from their power, it is a public system. Just via a separate layer. And if it is permissioned, does that not automatically mean it is centralized?

dboreham 8y ago
>If it is permissioned, does that not essentially mean its write-side is "private"? Not parent, but yes. >And if it is permissioned, does that not automatically mean it is centralized? That depends on your definition of centralized: if you mean "under the control of humans" then yes it does. If you mean "under the control of one human" than no it doesn't. For example a common approach is to designate a set of institutions (e.g. not for profit foundations in several different countries) to be in control of the validating nodes. Under that model a quorum of those institutions would need to be subverted in order to censor transactions.
- berkes 8y ago
  I consider a consortium of individuals "centralized". At least not "decentralized".
- mathnmusic 8y ago
  Yes, "non-profits with political, jurisdictional, legal diversity" is pretty much the approach we plan to take. In fact, to begin with we'll be borrowing from Sovrin (decentralized identity)'s governance model.

lalaland1125 8y ago

> It's a good time to point out that "permissioned" blockchain does not have to mean a "private" blockchain. While the validator nodes may be a whitelisted group, anonymous users can still be allowed to run observer nodes. So I guess that means certificate transparency is a "blockchain"?