4 ms·

Isn't this all definition? It seems reasonable for three companies to create a block chain only they see. It is public, in a sense, because the transactions sp

• berkes 8y ago
  Well no, because for these cases the most important thing that a blockchain solves needs not be solved. PoS (or PoW) are not needed because there is no sybil attack nor a byzantine-general problem to be solved. In fact, most "Private Blockchains" ditch the PoW and therefore can claim "tremendous scaling" or things like that. Ditching the PoW solves most of the scaling issues. Sure. But a blockchain without a PoW is simply a log that is cryptographically signed (but not secured). Because I could very easily just change block #2 and simply accept the cascading effect. People familiar with Git use this principle every day. A git --amend and git push --force is exactly this. Once you can convince the participants in your private network (your colleagues) to use your branch, history has been rewritten. (And the old work is just one garbage-collection away from being forgotten forever). So, yes, it is very much a definition question. But that is because "a blockchain" has it's requirements and its pro's and cons built into that definition. So if you start stretching the definition, you simply loose requirements. And you end up with something that really makes no sense.