So a database?
> AFAIK it is live and actively used.
Most things people seem to think are running on blockchain tech turn out not to be, so I'd be interested in any evidence here. Nonetheless.
> operating a database for that scale would be very complicated
They're already operating a database, so at most this is an argument that a traditional database tech wouldn't work, except...
...this is only a few billion rows, at most, right? With minimal data? It would totally, totally work. We're at a scale where a copy of "MySQL for dummies" is going to explain everything you need to know here. A moderately large number of people in this thread probably work for companies that have traditional databases that work at a larger scale or with higher demands than this.
But if you consider it more like an easy to cluster database with free, tamper-proof backups, it makes a lot more sense.
There is no problem with performance until schema changes are made, requiring a careful migration strategy plan (this is why DBAs get the big bucks.)
Source: DBA.
There's a few such systems in production - in practice, they tend to use a private Ethereum or Hyperledger as a back-end data store, and 100% of the use case for using a blockchain for your private back-end data store is being able to say "blockchain!" in the press release.
Would it, though? Google tells me that India has a population of around 1.4 billion people. Let's assume each person has one phone number, and each phone number requires one kilobyte of number-mobility-related data. Then the database would need to store 1.4 terabytes of information.
1.4 terabytes doesn't seem like an impossible amount of data to store. That fits on a consumer hard drive! Dell will sell you a single server with that much memory! Request volume doesn't seem like a huge issue either, since porting a phone number is something people do extremely rarely.
Or for that matter, recording of call details for billing between operators?
In a traditional database setup, the "transactional method to update it" would be sending a request to a central server to update the database. The central server can be run by whatever regulatory body or industry association is responsible for number portability -- ideally, this would be the group with legal authority to overrule whatever the computer system says anyway. It wouldn't need to handle a large number of transactions per second because people don't change phone providers very often.
You could imagine doing it with a blockchain instead, but you could also imagine doing it using a Yahoo Groups email list -- that doesn't make it a necessary or good solution.
> It wouldn't need to handle a large number of transactions per second because people don't change phone providers very often.
That makes it fit blockchain quite well, actually.
I mean, I can imagine government wants this, so if such ideas comes from government you're going to have such regulatory body. But otherwise, if it comes from operators itself, they don't want to introduce such entity, and they don't want to award one of them as an ultimate boss to rule all of the numbers. Blockchain, at least, gives them a chance to continue to be equal.
But as this article articulates so well, that’s a red herring. Like, you can come up with all sorts of wild scenarios where central authority can be bad. But ultimately, these are scenarios you’re unlikely to encounter in the real world, and if you do, there are much simpler solutions.
Blockchain technology always reminded me of that XKCD about cryptographer expectations vs. reality (https://xkcd.com/538/): it’s solving a problem that only really exists in fantasy for 99% of the population.
Ther database will hold only entries signed by telco companies. Some rules will apply on what happens when a number changes.
Everyone gets access to the raw database, and to query the database.
In case of mismatches there will be an agreed arbitration process, with agreed upon fines to the party no being responsible. This or some other contract.
This sort of solves the problem.
The key win in the blockchain - is the decentralization. But we know, in the real world how to arrange cooperation using centralization. it works. It's done every day. So this case is mostly useful when you want to avoid regulation.
Another win of the blockchain - a lot of work has been done verifying that it is secure. It probably is the mose secure system for those sort of problems. And that's a good reason to use it in many places.
Let's say you get a computer virus that steals your banking credentials and transfers your money to someone else's account. In the traditional banking system, it's often possible to reset passwords and reverse transactions, especially if you catch the bad behavior quickly. With Bitcoin, your money is gone forever and it is mathematically impossible for you to ever get it back.
But in the example above that could still be easily fixed, you'd just need the companies involved to agree to reverse the mistake, as they are the miners of the chain.
But if the code is already written, meets the project requirements and is easy to deploy, why not?
I agree that if they're private they're equivalent to a customized database system, private blockchains aren't interesting but it doesn't make them useless, it's simply another way to solve problems that could already be solved before.
Also I don't think there is any significant energy consumed. There is no mining or anything like that. You have to pay for extra network traffic and more disks, simply because you're going to have more copies of data, most likely, but it's not so large amount of energy.
Second would be more profitable for the owners of that db, so there is a motivation to do it in that way. In many of the countries outside of US/EU it's a popular practice.
With this particular case, it maybe be solution to fight corruption (just a guess). Centralized trusted control of all phone number of a country is a huge power and a magnet for different types of corruption. So maybe the difference is that in your country the magnitude of corruption is lower than in India, or easier to handle because of size.
I don't know about corruption levels in India. I am under the impression that the level of corruption in my country is rather tiny, so this could very well be the explanation.