Hacker News Reader

Comment by joe_momma | Hacker News Reader

The author makes no mention of immutability or the contrast between a sql database. The author misses the point for which a blockchain db is more useful for recording a record of history and the lineage of any subsequent transactions or transfers. I never even saw a real argument as to why enterprises shouldn't use it.

Furthermore the analogy with the birth certificate is misleading. The blockchain doesn't determine your dob, the person who enters it does, and now it can't be altered later and if it does there's a record of it.

Blockchain is really just an ultra logging mechanism that's already setup where you would have to design that setup yourself in sql. Throw in immutability and voila you have something that is designed to be more dependable and trustworthy.

View on HN

Isn't the entire point of this article that we want mutability? Sometimes a record is wrong and needs to be corrected. A blockchain works when the only facts it records are completely dependent on the blockchain itself. If you're trying to record facts about the world, the actual world is the authoritative source. The author's point seems to be blockchain is not likely to work for applications in which a misrecorded or forged fact would require you to discard the entire blockchain and start over if it was discovered. It only works when the facts you care about are facts about the blockchain itself.

Those changes you speak of in the real world should be recorded and would be the purpose of blockchain to have those errors included. Then you have the real history, not what someone else decided to erase and replace with what they now believe to be accurate.

You can have immutability with an append only log.

What's key in btc is the network and the consensus which gives strength to the immutability claim.

If you have trust (eg. with a centralised system) you don't need consensus.

A commercial system is likely offered by a company who has stakes in the operation and can therefore provide trust without wasting all that energy and without consensus.

Then the author should only be making the claim against consensus for validation. Why would a private org need a public consensus, that is obvious. Take a look at Amazon QLDB, enterprises can make use of blockchains because sql doesn't connect the dots as well. Developers have to write the code that creates the connections between data. Blockchain has dots that are already connected in a sense, that's how it already is. Now it's more than a log, it is a real representation, because of the age, kind of like domain names. Their value increases over time though they are the same thing and only exist digitally or ina database.

Literally everything you just said is what the article argues about. You skimmed it and missed the point. Theres nothing blockchain can do more special than a decently setup relational DB, except burn a hell whole lot more energy. Blockchain wins, handsdown on the being ineffienct race. Puts bureaucrats to shame.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com