3 ms·

Because it is a really inefficient way to store what amounts to an immutable ledger in a traditional database. While I don't agree with a lot of the consensus t

by kls 6y ago

Because it is a really inefficient way to store what amounts to an immutable ledger in a traditional database. While I don't agree with a lot of the consensus that blockchain is completely useless. I pretty much agree that it is useless if it is owned by a private entity. That was one of the main points of the blockchain, how can we create a public datastore that is not owned by anyone and it tamperproof. I see public blockchain as valuable to freedoms in a libertarian sense but see no value in companies adopting the core blockchain techs. Tooling around public blockchains sure or API's available on things like D'APPS make sense, but private ledgers make absolutely no sense to me. Just use a traditional database and implement all the data storage as a ledger pattern and you get the same effect with out all the energy consumption.

ric2b 6y ago
AFAIK private blockchains usually don't rely on proof of work so there's no large energy usage. I agree that if they're private they're equivalent to a customized database system, private blockchains aren't interesting but it doesn't make them useless, it's simply another way to solve problems that could already be solved before.
splix 6y ago
It isn't owned by a single private company, most usually. But multiple companies with equal rights to update. That's what you cannot do with traditional db. Also I don't think there is any significant energy consumed. There is no mining or anything like that. You have to pay for extra network traffic and more disks, simply because you're going to have more copies of data, most likely, but it's not so large amount of energy.
- joosters 6y ago
  An API doesn’t care what company the client belongs to, so it’s pretty easy to have a DB that can be updated by more than one company. There’s no technical reason to prefer a blockchain, it’s just marketing.
  - splix 6y ago
    It's pretty easy to make it like you said. But it also pretty easy to make it in a way when some companies would have a preference. Second would be more profitable for the owners of that db, so there is a motivation to do it in that way. In many of the countries outside of US/EU it's a popular practice.

by kls 6y ago

ric2b 6y ago

AFAIK private blockchains usually don't rely on proof of work so there's no large energy usage. I agree that if they're private they're equivalent to a customized database system, private blockchains aren't interesting but it doesn't make them useless, it's simply another way to solve problems that could already be solved before.

splix 6y ago

It isn't owned by a single private company, most usually. But multiple companies with equal rights to update. That's what you cannot do with traditional db. Also I don't think there is any significant energy consumed. There is no mining or anything like that. You have to pay for extra network traffic and more disks, simply because you're going to have more copies of data, most likely, but it's not so large amount of energy.

joosters 6y ago
An API doesn’t care what company the client belongs to, so it’s pretty easy to have a DB that can be updated by more than one company. There’s no technical reason to prefer a blockchain, it’s just marketing.
- splix 6y ago
  It's pretty easy to make it like you said. But it also pretty easy to make it in a way when some companies would have a preference. Second would be more profitable for the owners of that db, so there is a motivation to do it in that way. In many of the countries outside of US/EU it's a popular practice.