Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dmitriid 1527 days ago
> I'll admit that a normal blockchain would be impossible to store that level of transactional data. Of course that doesn't mean that it isn't possible to store it in a decentralized manner

Translation: blockchain a) doesn't solve this problem, and b) isn't required for this
1 comments
x-complexity 1527 days ago
> > I'll admit that a normal blockchain would be impossible to store that level of transactional data. Of course that doesn't mean that it isn't possible to store it in a decentralized manner

> Translation: blockchain a) doesn't solve this problem, and b) isn't required for this

Clarification: The data structure of a typical blockchain that is regularly talked about (single-chain, no shard/web) definitely cannot store that level of data. In order to reach that level of data throughput, better data structures are required to do so.

Single-chain blockchains are great in terms of determining transaction finality, but are poor in terms of data storage. This doesn't mean that research into decentralized & computationally-assured data storage techniques shouldn't be pursued.

link
dmitriid 1527 days ago
> This doesn't mean that research into decentralized & computationally-assured data storage techniques shouldn't be pursued.

No, it doesn't, for one simple reason: blockchains is not the only such tech, and "computational assuredness" probably isn't really a requirement for this.

link
x-complexity 1527 days ago
> > This doesn't mean that research into decentralized & computationally-assured data storage techniques shouldn't be pursued.

> No, it doesn't, for one simple reason: blockchains is not the only such tech

Again, reiteration must be applied here: The standard single-shard reference-to-previous-block data structure that is the initial blockchain structure is non-conducive towards decentralized data storage. As stated beforehand:

> > The data structure of a typical blockchain that is regularly talked about (single-chain, no shard/web) definitely cannot store that level of data. In order to reach that level of data throughput, better data structures are required to do so.

> , and "computational assuredness" probably isn't really a requirement for this.

Towards the latter half of your statement, if computational assurance is not required, then standard trust-based storage solutions can be implemented instead.

HOWEVER (and it should be stressed with extreme emphasis on the word), in that scenario, concerns about the centralized nature of such a storage solution CANNOT be launched by critics: It was their criticism of decentralized storage solutions that caused the shift towards standard trust-based storage solutions, and thus they cannot criticize the move towards the latter. Otherwise, their criticism is not out of technical concern, but out of personal opinion.

link
dmitriid 1527 days ago
> concerns about the centralized nature of such a storage solution CANNOT be launched by critics: It was their criticism of decentralized storage solutions that caused the shift towards standard trust-based storage solutions, and thus they cannot criticize the move towards the latter. Otherwise, their criticism is not out of technical concern, but out of personal opinion.

This sounds like a rant devoid of meaning.

Yes, there are centralized solutions. Yes, there are decentralized solutions. Yes, critics have full right to criticize both, because both have their failings.

This has literally nothing to do with whatever ideological angle you're trying to force.

link
x-complexity 1527 days ago
> > concerns about the centralized nature of such a storage solution CANNOT be launched by critics: It was their criticism of decentralized storage solutions that caused the shift towards standard trust-based storage solutions, and thus they cannot criticize the move towards the latter. Otherwise, their criticism is not out of technical concern, but out of personal opinion.

> This sounds like a rant devoid of meaning.

> Yes, there are centralized solutions. Yes, there are decentralized solutions. Yes, critics have full right to criticize both, because both have their failings.

> This has literally nothing to do with whatever ideological angle you're trying to force.

The ideological angle in this case is: "N solutions have a mixture of good & bad, but at least one of them is required for system S to function. Critics that criticize N-1 of N solutions cannot criticize the usage of the Nth solution when that is the only other solution left, after catering to their desires for (1...N-1) of N solutions to not be used."

link
dmitriid 1527 days ago
The amount of meaning in your statements is asymptotically approaching zero, and has completely diverged from original discussion.
link