3 ms·

This is what the website literally claims: === start quote === Web2 Databases were meant to deal with datasets that change frequently. They have to provide AC

This is what the website literally claims: === start quote === Web2 Databases were meant to deal with datasets that change frequently. They have to provide ACID guarantees to ensure correctness. The solution to this problem becomes more complex with scale. Distributed transactions, sharding, replication, and fault tolerance are notoriously slow. Web2 databases are just NOT designed for web3 A system designed to take full advantage of the fact that blockchain data is immutable, and correctness has been dealt with already. We built a cheaper and simpler storage and indexing system from scratch that can scale to the heaviest blockchain workloads out there. === end quote === Then here's what you claimed === start quote === Web3 data is different from what most classic databases are optimised for, because of how it's accessed and the (mostly) immutable guarantees. The only thing relevant here is that blockchain data is almost exclusively append-only and so you can build something neater because you've got guarantees that many other problems don't have. === end quote === So, to give you a doze of reality and dispel the lies on the web site I showed that your view of the world does not reflect what the world is: - Blockchain isn't the only thing to have an immutable log. Apache Kafka is one, and is being used at scale that dwarfs anything in crypto space - "The heaviest blockchain workloads out there" as claimed by the web site have literally nothing on "traditional/classical" whatever because traditional/classical handle workloads that exceed blockchains by multiple orders of magnitude - There's nothing revolutionary in the service despite its bullshit claims: they dump blockchain data into a traditional database, slap a traditional (I'd say conservative) JSON-RPC API on top, and probably add a traditional Elastic Search on the side. Everything that they accuse "traditional systems" incapable of doing and incapable of handling. Even though, again, traditional systems can probably handle all this on a free tier of any cloud hosting provider We've known how to handle append-only mostly-immutable data at scale using "traditional" methods for ages. Literally every banking system is all but required to have an append-only log of transactions for audit purposes. And yet here we are with clueless gullible fools pretending this is something new and something that can't be handled by "outdated slow technologies of yore".

IanCal 4y ago
I'm only going to reply this last time as I come to HN to get away from reddit style back and forth arguments. They don't say that standard databases can't handle this. They say that they can do it cheaper and faster without them, because you don't need a bunch of the features. They are literally telling you that their solution is simpler not revolutionary. You are conflating two very different things, the production and indexing - and then consumers. > - Blockchain isn't the only thing to have an immutable log. Apache Kafka is one, and is being used at scale that dwarfs anything in crypto space Sure, and doesn't solve the problem here as you have already told me. Kafka would be ridiculous overkill IMO for the part it would play. The problem is simpler than kafka is designed for, so it makes sense that someone could make a simpler tool to handle it. > Even though, again, traditional systems can probably handle all this on a free tier of any cloud hosting provider That very much depends on your users - it's this kind of statement that makes me think you're not picturing what this actually is. > slap a traditional (I'd say conservative) JSON-RPC API on top, Yes, this exact API is very much a requirement for this kind of service. As a final thought, if you think you can throw this together for a large customer base easily and host it basically for free while having better performance - go for it. You'll make money because the alternative options are expensive.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  Again you're responding to what you imagine I was writing even when I provided direct quotes from both the website and you. But since this was your last reply, adieu.

IanCal 4y ago

I'm only going to reply this last time as I come to HN to get away from reddit style back and forth arguments. They don't say that standard databases can't handle this. They say that they can do it cheaper and faster without them, because you don't need a bunch of the features. They are literally telling you that their solution is simpler not revolutionary. You are conflating two very different things, the production and indexing - and then consumers. > - Blockchain isn't the only thing to have an immutable log. Apache Kafka is one, and is being used at scale that dwarfs anything in crypto space Sure, and doesn't solve the problem here as you have already told me. Kafka would be ridiculous overkill IMO for the part it would play. The problem is simpler than kafka is designed for, so it makes sense that someone could make a simpler tool to handle it. > Even though, again, traditional systems can probably handle all this on a free tier of any cloud hosting provider That very much depends on your users - it's this kind of statement that makes me think you're not picturing what this actually is. > slap a traditional (I'd say conservative) JSON-RPC API on top, Yes, this exact API is very much a requirement for this kind of service. As a final thought, if you think you can throw this together for a large customer base easily and host it basically for free while having better performance - go for it. You'll make money because the alternative options are expensive.

dmitriid 4y ago
Again you're responding to what you imagine I was writing even when I provided direct quotes from both the website and you. But since this was your last reply, adieu.