3 ms·

> A blockchain doesn't need to be decentralized If it's not decentralized it's usually referred to as a "permissioned blockchain" which purists don't consider

by leifg 5y ago

> A blockchain doesn't need to be decentralized If it's not decentralized it's usually referred to as a "permissioned blockchain" which purists don't consider a "real blockchain" and at this point where "blockchain" becomes a marketing term. But leaving that aside. What bothers me is the implication that only a blockchain implementation can provide sufficient transparacy. There are a million different ways to increase transparency within a computer system: - audit logs - access logs - offside backups - paper copies - distributing data amongst a set of trusted but independent parties - you could even enforce cryptographic signatures on all changes But most importantly: policy If you are losing your job (and get sued) because you changed data in the production database without authorization most people are less likely to do it. And in today's world it's really hard not to cover your tracks. The idea that we need to be 100x safer than that is just absurd.

billytetrud 5y ago
> purists don't consider a "real blockchain" Sure. At that point its semantics, but fair. I certainly wouldn't recommend a proof of work blockchain with hundreds of thousands of nodes for this. A federated blockchain would be ideal for a situation where the final source of truth is a centralized system. > the implication that only a blockchain implementation can provide sufficient transparacy I don't think anything I said implies that. I certainly didn't intend to imply that. Certainly there are other secure solutions, however I'm saying that a blockchain is a pretty well understood solution that should work. > If you are losing your job (and get sued) because you changed data in the production database without authorization most people are less likely to do it. I think people are looking for better solutions than "most people don't screw up the system". > The idea that we need to be 100x safer than that is just absurd. Again, not something I said at all. But if there's a solution that's 100x safer and no more costly (in fact maybe even cheaper), why not do it?

by leifg 5y ago

billytetrud 5y ago

> purists don't consider a "real blockchain" Sure. At that point its semantics, but fair. I certainly wouldn't recommend a proof of work blockchain with hundreds of thousands of nodes for this. A federated blockchain would be ideal for a situation where the final source of truth is a centralized system. > the implication that only a blockchain implementation can provide sufficient transparacy I don't think anything I said implies that. I certainly didn't intend to imply that. Certainly there are other secure solutions, however I'm saying that a blockchain is a pretty well understood solution that should work. > If you are losing your job (and get sued) because you changed data in the production database without authorization most people are less likely to do it. I think people are looking for better solutions than "most people don't screw up the system". > The idea that we need to be 100x safer than that is just absurd. Again, not something I said at all. But if there's a solution that's 100x safer and no more costly (in fact maybe even cheaper), why not do it?