3 ms·

Which of the ACID property is broken here? Transaction is by definition atomic, internal consistency was not broken, and isolation and durability are fine. ACI

Which of the ACID property is broken here? Transaction is by definition atomic, internal consistency was not broken, and isolation and durability are fine. ACID makes sense in internal transfer, like the example you gave: > debiting one account and crediting another, is a single transaction. Blockchain is ACID compliant, their internal database could be ACID compliant hard part is linking it together. The solution here is exactly going opposite of ACID. Do a transaction in database first, and hope the transaction goes through Bitcoin, if not have another job reverse the transaction. If the reverse job fails, have a support agent manually revert the transaction. A common mistake someone could do is to put transaction in processing state in the database, and have another job update it to success.

IncRnd 4y ago
> Blockchain is ACID compliant, their internal database could be ACID compliant hard part is linking it together. That's the issue, ACID is not ACID for a tiny bit but for the transaction. See the definition you quoted, "debiting one account and crediting another, is a single transaction." Blockchain is absolutely not ACID compliant. There must be a deterministic methodology not miner consensus for ACID. Miners can even change the blockchain. However, why are you even mentioning blockchain instead of MYSQL without SERIALIZABLE, which enforces atomicity? > The solution here is exactly going opposite of ACID. What solution are you talking about? There was no solution put in place, which was the cause of the thefts.