3 ms·
The standard definition of "blockchain" presumes that there is zero-trust between nodes and that anyone on the Internet can join the network. These properties a
by lukeschlather 6y ago
The standard definition of "blockchain" presumes that there is zero-trust between nodes and that anyone on the Internet can join the network. These properties are probably not what you want for most practical applications.
For most practical applications a git repo where you have some set of trusted notaries and at least M of N notaries must sign each commit is probably closer to what you want. (Or something that is similar logically but still does not fit the standard definition of blockchain, which again is trustless.)
- hobofan 6y agoI also prefer zero-trust blockchains, as they are more interesting ideologically and intellectually. I disagree however that the "standard" definition presumes zero-trust. In my opinion the only thing that is presumed is some form of consensus mechanism, which can also be a trusted one like PoA (proof of authority). > git repo where you have some set of trusted notaries and at least M of N notaries There isn't really much difference between a PoA blockchain and what you describe on a data structure level. The main differences here will be the mode of operation (active node vs. passive repository) and builtin support and optimizations for currency transactions. If you were really inclined, you could probably implement a optimized git client/server that could achieve that (and I wouldn't be surprised if someone has done that already). What's the point in doing so tough, if you could just as well use an existing implementation of a PoA blockchain?