4 ms·
> blockchains should be replaced with centralized SQL databases Blockchains whose tokens are subject to the authority of a central issuer anyway should be repl
by wz1000 7y ago
> blockchains should be replaced with centralized SQL databases
Blockchains whose tokens are subject to the authority of a central issuer anyway should be replaced with centralized SQL databases. Bitcoin/namecoin/etc. can't be replaced with centralized databases. FBCoin can, as can any blockchain that is supposed to track meatspace resources(since physical resources are subject to the authority of the local government/men with guns anyway).
> Git repositories are just like blockchains
Nope, I don't consider this to be true. Blockchains are supposed to have decentralized consensus and allow arbitrary nodes to propose changes.
- mbrock 7y agoThe purpose of using a blockchain scheme to issue a centralized liability is probably to increase trust in the system due to the public verifiability of issuance and transfers.
- wz1000 7y agoSeems to me that "trust" is the last thing the average joe would associate cryptocurrency with. A database with a public audit trail might be a better idea if you want that, but that certainly doesn't sound as trendy and exciting as "blockchain".
- mbrock 7y agoIndeed, the blockchain concept is more exciting and understandable for a lot of people, so in that sense branding their consortium-controlled cryptographically verifiable ledger as a blockchain seems like a good PR decision.
- stale2002 7y agoA centralized SQL server isn't public. Turning it into a Blockchain makes it public, which is a significant advantage.