[pythondz]

Do they intend to keep the blockchain private ? I mean, at some point, someone will break into their private network (partners come and go...) and get a copy of the blockchain... Maybe even add a block on top of it.

This is a serious security flaw.

[sanswork]

I doubt it, and it wouldn't matter if someone got a copy because it would likely be hard to understand without their software to convert the refs in the transactions with actual data.

What makes you think they would accept some block added by an unapproved entity? And what would it matter if they did if the block didn't contain valid transactions it would be rejected and if it did include valid transactions than it would be no different from any other block on the chain. The ability to add A block doesn't matter in blockchains. The ability to create a longer chain that is accepted does and it's quite easy to avoid that possibility in private chains.

It isn't a security flaw at all.

[mooneater]

1) ah, security by obscurity 2) ah, security by credentials

completely the opposite approaches to bitcoin itself.

[sanswork]

1) I didn't imply that at all. Secrecy by obscurity maybe but it's not part of the security model.

2) who cares except Bitcoin owners? Bitcoin isn't the be all of blockchains and it isn't suitable for all problems. You say security by credentials like it's flawed too which is just you grasping for something to say.

[mooneater]

I think there is nothing at all wrong with more conventional security strategies, like credentials, and sure, obscurity can be a useful tactic.

All I am saying is: what is super special about the BTC blockchain, is that it doesnt rely on those at all, it doesnt need those things, because it has the magical property of security by Proof Of Work.

Removing that and still talking about a Block Chain like its a special thing, makes no sense to me.

Anyways this is all conjecture, its not even clear what they are doing in there. Would love to hear details.

[sanswork]

And all I'm saying is it doesn't matter how Bitcoin does it. The problems being solved are different. Bitcoin has to use a stupidly inefficient method of selecting who adds the next block because the participants aren't known. That's it. The proof of work waste adds nothing else to the security of the system except when you don't know the participants. So if you don't have to do that then proof of work adds nothing. You're hung up on proof of work but it seriously sounds like you're over estimating how important it is to the process. The block chain itself has nothing to do with proof of work. Remove proof of work and you have a blockchain. PoW is only for deciding who adds blocks.