3 ms·
No - but like...the key feature of blockchain is that you can design a system where you must do that to make a change. If you're running a 'centralized'* (let's
by aeturnum 4y ago
No - but like...the key feature of blockchain is that you can design a system where you must do that to make a change. If you're running a 'centralized'* (let's say 'administered') system then you can just change the database with your admin credentials. You could swear up and down that you threw away your admin credentials, but you can't prove you destroyed data. Blockchain systems can be used to create systems where you can prove that no entity has admin powers. I am extremely skeptical of how useful that is - but it is unique.
* blockchains are centralized; just in a different way
- dd36 4y agoHow do newsgroups maintain integrity across providers without a coin? Isn’t it like a sum check? That doesn’t work as good? I wish bitcoin were solving a real problem for the amount of energy it uses.
- aeturnum 4y agoI think checksums can be used to verify that particular messages are the same, but ultimately I think there just aren't that many protocols for ensuring that every provider has every message. Some messages could get dropped and the solution is that providers will just check again - there's no protocol level guard against it. Absolute integrity is a lot less important in systems which assume that inexpensive manual overrides will be possible - because you save a ton by simply deciding to build a system that 'only' works 99.9% of the time and intervening in 0.1% of cases. Obviously blockchains don't work 100% of the time but that's the premise for their increased costs.
- lmm 4y agoNewsgroups were run by a secret cabal for a long time. Beyond that the system just doesn't preserve integrity; a given provider can censor some messages and that's generally something you live with or switch to a better provider.