5 ms·

Decentralized? No, it's "IBM Food Trust". So how is this any better or different from hosting a database on IBM's server? Secured by a PoW? Doubt it. Here's t

Decentralized? No, it's "IBM Food Trust". So how is this any better or different from hosting a database on IBM's server? Secured by a PoW? Doubt it. Here's the closest I could find to technical info: > IBM Food Trust's blockchain solution, on the other hand, is permissioned so invited members know exactly with whom they are transacting, similar to what happens between business partners today. Participants also determine what data is seen by whom, thereby providing information on a need-to-know basis. Smart contracts also run on our blockchain, allowing business logic to help solve disputes, automatically execute contracts, and build trust.

imhoguy 8y ago
Sounds like another buzzword charged write-once database.
- muthdra 8y ago
  "buzzword charged" is a great expression.
- ruiquelhas 8y ago
  Is it really write-once though? I'm pretty sure there's no PoW involved (didn't bother to read) so all bets are off.
  - rocqua 8y ago
    You can replace PoW by a simple signatures, or a quorum of signatures. This is quite centralized, but still write-once. In any case, with a 'hash-linked-chain-of-blocks' attempted forks are really easy to prove.
    - ruiquelhas 8y ago
      I get that, but there are no guarantees it is write-once, because it might happen that the "quorum of signatures" changes their mind.
x2398dh1 8y ago
Where does anything in this article or anywhere in the title does it say the word, "Decentralized?" Where are you getting that from?
- gutnor 8y ago
  I guess the "Blockchain" part. Blockchain is a decentralised way to create trusted record without a trusted counterparty, i.e. centralised. In this case, there is nothing decentralised, you need to go through IBM as with a regular system. Blockchain is only mentioned as marketing to convince you they are reliable. A bit how some hosting service tell you their are using S3 to convince you they are not going to lose your data. edit: The problem is the title of the article that let you imagine there is some interesting blockchain tech being developed. Instead that's about as interesting as "Walmart uses SAP"
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- Slartie 8y ago
  If it's not intended to be a decentralized system in the first place, the "blockchain" aspect is useless and turns from being a clever hack that allows to generate a certain level of trust from distributed participants, thus enabling the decentralization in the first place, to a marketing ploy that, if not just being lip-service but actually implemented, is a huge resource hog and severely reduces scalability and maintainability of the system without offering any benefits whatsoever. Because of this situation it is natural to assume that a blockchain-based system must either have a decentralization aspect to it, or that the architects of the system are incompetent. And we don't want to assume there's such gross incompetence at IBM, do we? ;-)
  - undersuit 8y ago
    What if the biggest feature about using the blockchain isn't that it's an open ledger that resists tampering from untrustworthy agents but that it has lots of hype?

imhoguy 8y ago

Sounds like another buzzword charged write-once database.

muthdra 8y ago
"buzzword charged" is a great expression.
ruiquelhas 8y ago
Is it really write-once though? I'm pretty sure there's no PoW involved (didn't bother to read) so all bets are off.
- rocqua 8y ago
  You can replace PoW by a simple signatures, or a quorum of signatures. This is quite centralized, but still write-once. In any case, with a 'hash-linked-chain-of-blocks' attempted forks are really easy to prove.
  - ruiquelhas 8y ago
    I get that, but there are no guarantees it is write-once, because it might happen that the "quorum of signatures" changes their mind.

x2398dh1 8y ago

Where does anything in this article or anywhere in the title does it say the word, "Decentralized?" Where are you getting that from?

gutnor 8y ago
I guess the "Blockchain" part. Blockchain is a decentralised way to create trusted record without a trusted counterparty, i.e. centralised. In this case, there is nothing decentralised, you need to go through IBM as with a regular system. Blockchain is only mentioned as marketing to convince you they are reliable. A bit how some hosting service tell you their are using S3 to convince you they are not going to lose your data. edit: The problem is the title of the article that let you imagine there is some interesting blockchain tech being developed. Instead that's about as interesting as "Walmart uses SAP"
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
Slartie 8y ago
If it's not intended to be a decentralized system in the first place, the "blockchain" aspect is useless and turns from being a clever hack that allows to generate a certain level of trust from distributed participants, thus enabling the decentralization in the first place, to a marketing ploy that, if not just being lip-service but actually implemented, is a huge resource hog and severely reduces scalability and maintainability of the system without offering any benefits whatsoever. Because of this situation it is natural to assume that a blockchain-based system must either have a decentralization aspect to it, or that the architects of the system are incompetent. And we don't want to assume there's such gross incompetence at IBM, do we? ;-)
- undersuit 8y ago
  What if the biggest feature about using the blockchain isn't that it's an open ledger that resists tampering from untrustworthy agents but that it has lots of hype?