4 ms·
That’s an event sourcing architecture, and something like Kafka will do it much better than a blockchain. The forever problem can be, ironically, resolved with
by mnd999 4y ago
That’s an event sourcing architecture, and something like Kafka will do it much better than a blockchain.
The forever problem can be, ironically, resolved with crypto. If you encrypt each employer record with an employee key then, if the employee data needs to be deleted you just delete the key and the data is gone.
- kenniskrag 4y agoNot really with crypto, if you use a a not forever secure crypto algo.
- mnd999 4y agoThe usual reason for doing this is to convince auditors or lawyers that the system is in compliance with GDPR or similar legislation, not to resist the attention of three letter agencies. If you can say you’re using industry standard / government approved crypto it should be fine.
- newswasboring 4y agoThis argument is equivalent to saying a data center isn't secure because a nuclear bomb can fall on it.
- tokamak-teapot 4y agoHow about for sharing data between semi-co-operating companies? One problem with sharing data between multiple parties is that you need somewhere central to store it, somewhere that's ultimately trusted. If you decide to trust one party, they could still make mistakes, have downtime, stop supporting the project that requires the shared data, or go rogue. I'm perhaps too ignorant of blockchain, but could it help with this scenario? Does it give a better promise of availability and more trust in its consistency and integrity? edit: I'm thinking here of a blockchain whose only users are this group of companies, not a public system. I don't know if a blockchain becomes useless when it is only used by a small group.