6 ms·

> The idea to get rid of having to trust centralized organizations might sound tempting, but it doesn’t work: Blockchains don’t get rid of “trust”, they just ch

by karxxm 4y ago

> The idea to get rid of having to trust centralized organizations might sound tempting, but it doesn’t work: Blockchains don’t get rid of “trust”, they just change, who has to be trusted. What if a group of trusted organizations run a blockchain together?

sharperguy 4y ago
These kind of networks exist. Not all of them rely on a blockchain datastructure. In general, they are thousands of times more efficient than a system like bitcoin, and require no mining, however, are subject to the whims of the various political jurisdictions that those organizations exist under.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
onion2k 4y ago
Then it'll automatically be seen as an attempt to build a cartel and keep competition out of the particular domain they operate in.
civilized 4y ago
They could also just run a SQL database together and it'd be much less complicated and more efficient.
- anonymousDan 4y ago
  I mean this is just a dumb argument. Who hosts the database? How do you trust them? It's as if people are being wilfully ignorant when they use this as a line of attack. Go learn about Byzantine fault tolerance and think a bit about what problems it attempts to solve
- dbrgn 4y ago
  Certificate transparency logs are essentially a blockchain. Would you prefer Google and the other stakeholders to run an SQL database instead, containing these logs?
  - civilized 4y ago
    To be honest I don't know anything about certificate transparency logs. Maybe they should be on a blockchain. It doesn't mean money should be on a blockchain.
mnd999 4y ago
Plenty of people trying to sell private blockchain snake-oil for precisely that purpose. It’s all rubbish, just use a database.
- Wazako 4y ago
  the blockchain is just a database. a database timed and validated by block. After all a database has advantages / constraints.
- dbrgn 4y ago
  Certificate transparency is a permissioned blockchain (a merkle hash tree), ran by a group of trusted organizations and observed by third party monitors ("validators"). Your browser probably queried that blockchain when you opened hackernews.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    It's a Merkle hash tree. You can call that a blockchain if you want, but we already have a much older and more specific term for it: Merkle hash tree.
    - dbrgn 4y ago
      Sure, I just wanted to point out that building merkle hash trees, or blockchains, or whatever you want to call it, isn't "all rubbish". There are some valid use cases.
      - tsimionescu 4y ago
        My point was that people who talk about blockchain typically refer to something other than a Merkle hash tree - they refer to a hash tree plus some consensus mechanism for trustless addition. I don't know of a term other than "blockchain" that can be used to refer to this concept.
        mnd999 4y ago
dividuum 4y ago
Like the one for Certificate Transparency: https://certificate.transparency.dev/logs/ https://certificate.transparency.dev/logs/
hapiri 4y ago
Then it's just a regular network, hence why permissioned / private blockchains are a lies to crypto enthusiasts

by karxxm 4y ago

sharperguy 4y ago

These kind of networks exist. Not all of them rely on a blockchain datastructure. In general, they are thousands of times more efficient than a system like bitcoin, and require no mining, however, are subject to the whims of the various political jurisdictions that those organizations exist under.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

onion2k 4y ago

Then it'll automatically be seen as an attempt to build a cartel and keep competition out of the particular domain they operate in.

civilized 4y ago

They could also just run a SQL database together and it'd be much less complicated and more efficient.

anonymousDan 4y ago
I mean this is just a dumb argument. Who hosts the database? How do you trust them? It's as if people are being wilfully ignorant when they use this as a line of attack. Go learn about Byzantine fault tolerance and think a bit about what problems it attempts to solve
dbrgn 4y ago
Certificate transparency logs are essentially a blockchain. Would you prefer Google and the other stakeholders to run an SQL database instead, containing these logs?
- civilized 4y ago
  To be honest I don't know anything about certificate transparency logs. Maybe they should be on a blockchain. It doesn't mean money should be on a blockchain.

mnd999 4y ago

Plenty of people trying to sell private blockchain snake-oil for precisely that purpose. It’s all rubbish, just use a database.

Wazako 4y ago
the blockchain is just a database. a database timed and validated by block. After all a database has advantages / constraints.
dbrgn 4y ago
Certificate transparency is a permissioned blockchain (a merkle hash tree), ran by a group of trusted organizations and observed by third party monitors ("validators"). Your browser probably queried that blockchain when you opened hackernews.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  It's a Merkle hash tree. You can call that a blockchain if you want, but we already have a much older and more specific term for it: Merkle hash tree.
  - dbrgn 4y ago
    Sure, I just wanted to point out that building merkle hash trees, or blockchains, or whatever you want to call it, isn't "all rubbish". There are some valid use cases.
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      My point was that people who talk about blockchain typically refer to something other than a Merkle hash tree - they refer to a hash tree plus some consensus mechanism for trustless addition. I don't know of a term other than "blockchain" that can be used to refer to this concept.
      - mnd999 4y ago

dividuum 4y ago

Like the one for Certificate Transparency: https://certificate.transparency.dev/logs/ https://certificate.transparency.dev/logs/

hapiri 4y ago

Then it's just a regular network, hence why permissioned / private blockchains are a lies to crypto enthusiasts