(1) is incorrect which renders (2) through (5) incorrect. 1. Blockchains are kept "authentic" by having identical copies distributed everywhere. Obviously a static, unexpanding copy is less useful than a dynamic one that records new transactions, so the copy holders have to be incentivized in order to keep their copies online and updated. 2. IN BITCOIN There is a reward for the first correct guess to a cryptographic puzzle. Essentially an army of computers are brute-forcing a solution. In order to have a hope in hell of coming in first, you need the clue of the last block. more here. Obviously the odds of guessing correctly are really shitty if you're all alone, which is why people talk about mining "pools." Pool the effort, distribute the wins. 3. The "correct" version of the blockchain is the one with the most agreement. If 30% of bitcoin miners decide they don't like the solution to any given block, there is now a fork with 30% of the miners on it, a fork with 70% of the miners on it, and "bitcoin" is whoever has the majority. Every miner needs the blockchain, the whole blockchain and nothing but the blockchain. 4) The more miners on the chain, the more miners need to vote against something in order to change it. If 30 miners in an 8,000 node network decide 7970 miners have the wrong copy, they are on their own pathetic little chain. If 30 miners in a 45-node network decide 15 miners have the wrong copy, they are still on their own pathetic little chain but they have the mother fork, for whatever it's worth. This formed the basis of the last season of Silicon Valley, incidentally. 5. The cost of calculating the next block increases over time so that early adopters are given an advantage. It's monetary policy at the code level. The difficulty of the hash is a choice, not an effect. Are those differences adequately explained?
Your clarifications are fine, but I do find it to be a bit of an uncharitable reading of what I wrote, because it seems to be far less wrong than you make it out to be, if we're to believe wasoxygen. However, the point that mattered most to what I was trying to say (point 5) turns out to be completely wrong, so it sounds like the power consumption point made in the article only applies to Bitcoin (or other similar blockchain use cases), and not blockchains in general. I still think a lot of the other points made in the article are valid. Mainly the idea that a blockchain can't replace external human validation, since a blockchain can only verify that records have not been tampered with after the fact, but can't verify that the input records are correct in the first place. For example in the case of land changing hands, the blockchain can't verify whether it really did or not, it has to be told. Instead of saying a blockchain is a glorified database, maybe it's more accurate to say it's a database with an elaborate checksum? A checksum can only check that data hasn't changed since the checksum was calculated, not whether or not the input information is correct. There are also further trade-offs which do come at a cost (of course that applies to any technology); - The security increases with the number of copies of the block chain out there, but since you need the entire chain to be copied it can be extremely storage intensive. Imagine if you wanted to use a block chain for a stock exchange; the number of transactions per day is enormous. - Keeping all of these copies in sync costs a lot in terms of data traffic, which also creates latency. In fact, all the hashing, even if it's not quite as bad as I thought, will create latency as well. In a time where some companies move physically close to stock exchanges in order to have shorter latency over their (already speed of light) fibre, this is not a minor concern. I think it's safe to say it's not "effectively zero cost", but it could be an acceptable cost for some applications. I also think it's safe to say there are many applications it would not be a good fit for.
You're effectively saying that since someone partially disagrees with me I'm rude. This is how we got into trouble last time - I can't stop you from being personally upset by the things I say but I can remind you that the excessive length and care you get in my responses are a sign I'm trying not to piss you off. wasoxygen is wrong. Blockchains are distributed ledgers. The distribution is the point. BitCOIN was derived from BitTORRENT where the entire point is the distribution and decentralization. The difference between bitcoin and bittorrent is there need be no central server to point new users to the blocks because there are no blocks. Everyone has the whole thing or they aren't a part of the equation. If you aren't 100% identical to everyone else on the network you aren't on the network. It's not a database. It's unwieldy and impossible to manipulate. A blockchain is an indelible, unfalsifiable, permanent record of transactions. You're absolutely right: if you write "2 plus 2 equals 5" in the blockchain, it will say that two plus two equals five. however, that block will have a unique identifier and the user that wrote that on the blockchain is also indelibly marked. And you're absolutely right that the blockchain is only as good as the information on it. But again, if you write something wrong or dishonest, you have written it forever, out where it can never be edited. Mistakes will be made because we're people but a pattern of "mistakes" is either incompetence or malfeasance and now that it's there forever, anyone can investigate. More importantly, there is no horizon beyond which mistakes cannot be found. No. With a public blockchain the durability increases with the number of copies. A 51% attack on an authentication blockchain would create two blockchains. Any transaction that happened before the 51% attack would be on both blockchains while any transaction that happened after the 51% attack would only be on one. if KBChain made the mistake of letting anybody on board, and got 51%attacked, KBChain Classic would release a memo saying "well that was dumb, we've still got your original verification and we're making our admissions standards more stringent." The data itself remains inviolate. Yes. But latency doesn't matter in the slightest when we're talking about authentication. If I'm buying and you're selling the money is going into an escrow account that you won't see for a month anyway so who cares. Thus once again we move from "I don't understand it and you're wrong" to "I understand it a little better but you're still wrong." A blockchain need not have 8,000 members. You don't get to play with Hyperledger unless you have a board of directors. Authentication on Bitcoin is dumb and authentication on the Ethereum mainnet is tortuous but authentication on an Ethereum-compliant private net could be fast as networking. Arianee, for example, accomplishes its mission perfectly if they just assign a node to every vendor that wants their products verified. If you've got 100 brands you've got 100 nodes and the network is secure because the only people who can write to the network are the brands that depend on it. That's 100 Raspberry Pis or the equivalent. Give each of 'em a 1TB hard drive. You're talking about a $500 cost for companies that don't sell watches for less than $5k ea. Breitling did 530m CHF in sales last year. I would say "effectively zero" is an accurate description.Your clarifications are fine, but I do find it to be a bit of an uncharitable reading of what I wrote, because it seems to be far less wrong than you make it out to be, if we're to believe wasoxygen.
Instead of saying a blockchain is a glorified database, maybe it's more accurate to say it's a database with an elaborate checksum?
- The security increases with the number of copies of the block chain out there, but since you need the entire chain to be copied it can be extremely storage intensive.
- Keeping all of these copies in sync costs a lot in terms of data traffic, which also creates latency. In fact, all the hashing, even if it's not quite as bad as I thought, will create latency as well.
I think it's safe to say it's not "effectively zero cost", but it could be an acceptable cost for some applications. I also think it's safe to say there are many applications it would not be a good fit for.
Fine, let's say it it's a ledger, good enough for me. Agreed, but with a lot of these things the paper trail isn't necessarily even the problem. Let's take Trump's taxes, for example. There is documentation out there that shows he's probably done illegal things, he just hasn't been prosecuted either due to the IRS being under-resourced, or political considerations. The documentation itself does not seem to be the issue. I think you definitely have a point about dodgy dealings by state officials in places like India, but again I don't think this is a technical problem as much as it is a political problem. They could have good records without blockchains if their politicians really wanted it, but clearly they don't. I don't disagree with the technical case, but the point I was making is that you can completely recalculate the entire block chain to your liking if you have access to enough copies of the chain, or have enough friends who do. And in your example, it still very much depends on people trusting you (or some group) to be the arbiter of KBChain. Blockchain creates a robust ledger, one where no single actor can simply cross out a name in a document, which is good, but you could also achieve that by having a database that tracks changes over time. I guess your point is not that it's impermeable, but rather that it makes it harder to mess around with it. I don't disagree with this, but other secure systems are probably just as good? Absolutely, but I did say it can be good for some applications. I have the feeling that we basically agree, maybe I just think that the things blockchains do aren't quite as revolutionary as you do.But again, if you write something wrong or dishonest, you have written it forever, out where it can never be edited. Mistakes will be made because we're people but a pattern of "mistakes" is either incompetence or malfeasance and now that it's there forever, anyone can investigate
No. With a public blockchain the durability increases with the number of copies. A 51% attack on an authentication blockchain would create two blockchains. Any transaction that happened before the 51% attack would be on both blockchains while any transaction that happened after the 51% attack would only be on one. if KBChain made the mistake of letting anybody on board, and got 51%attacked, KBChain Classic would release a memo saying "well that was dumb, we've still got your original verification and we're making our admissions standards more stringent." The data itself remains inviolate.
That's 100 Raspberry Pis or the equivalent. Give each of 'em a 1TB hard drive. You're talking about a $500 cost for companies that don't sell watches for less than $5k ea. Breitling did 530m CHF in sales last year. I would say "effectively zero" is an accurate description.
The difference between "harder" and "impossible" is non-negligible.
It's late so I'll have to get back to you tomorrow on this.