3 ms·

Having a database that can run through multiple nodes should be very enticing given the recent ransomware attacks that ground centralized databases to a halt. I

Having a database that can run through multiple nodes should be very enticing given the recent ransomware attacks that ground centralized databases to a halt. Instead of waiting days to restore their billing system, Colonial could have just brought in more nodes under a blockchain system and sacrificed the ransomware'd ones. As long as one survived with the data intact, all other nodes would have been able to get the data from it while verifying lack of tampering (something your backups can't tell you without lots of hard work). Don't we argue against centralization on HN all of the time? There's so many good arguments against putting everything you rely on onto one server that can get bopped by random Ukrainian teenagers.

XorNot 5y ago
Where would the data have survived? Colonial would have to be paying someone to hold their extra nodes, in which case....they could've just paid to hold backups anyway.
dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago
> Colonial could have just brought in more nodes under a blockchain system How is that different from having backup copies with a third party? Organizations really need to learn how to make ransmoware-proof backups. Blockchain has many uses but by itself won't protect anyone against ransomware attacks.
- qeternity 5y ago
  It's not different. Like I said, it's just classic blockchain handwaving.
qeternity 5y ago
> Don't we argue against centralization on HN all of the time? No, we argue the right paradigm for the right use case. Both centralization and decentralization have their pros and cons. But the blockchain decentralize-all-the-things group think is just people who don't quite grasp the tech being blinded by the hype. What you've described (adding more nodes) is just classic DR: spin up your infra from append-only backups in a warm site, or better yet, failover to a hot site with minimal downtime.

XorNot 5y ago

Where would the data have survived? Colonial would have to be paying someone to hold their extra nodes, in which case....they could've just paid to hold backups anyway.

dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago

> Colonial could have just brought in more nodes under a blockchain system How is that different from having backup copies with a third party? Organizations really need to learn how to make ransmoware-proof backups. Blockchain has many uses but by itself won't protect anyone against ransomware attacks.

qeternity 5y ago
It's not different. Like I said, it's just classic blockchain handwaving.

qeternity 5y ago

> Don't we argue against centralization on HN all of the time? No, we argue the right paradigm for the right use case. Both centralization and decentralization have their pros and cons. But the blockchain decentralize-all-the-things group think is just people who don't quite grasp the tech being blinded by the hype. What you've described (adding more nodes) is just classic DR: spin up your infra from append-only backups in a warm site, or better yet, failover to a hot site with minimal downtime.