3 ms·
Herein lies the rub with blockchain systems. If they're public, they're attackable, and if they're private, they're slower, more power hungry, and less flexible
by nameless912 8y ago
Herein lies the rub with blockchain systems. If they're public, they're attackable, and if they're private, they're slower, more power hungry, and less flexible than a plain old database. It's not a dumb question, but blockchain doesn't provide good answers :)
- leereeves 8y agoI'm no fan of the blockchain, but this may be in the middle ground where blockchain makes sense: multiple independent trusted-but-not-completely parties verifying each other's actions.
- nameless912 8y agoI still don't buy that blockchain is better than any of the other solutions that we've come up with for this problem, since (like with, for example, byzantine consensus) 50%+1 of actors being misbehaved breaks any security guarantee.
- munk-a 8y agoDemocracies already have some reliance on trusted authorities, so why not just leverage those and assign the trust of the voting system to those established trusted authorities? Also, blockchains are fun - they are not a magical salve.
- stale2002 8y agoBlockchain in this context just means that everyone signs cryptographic messages, in a public database. That's it.