I follow blockchain and bitcoin news very closely, and this article gets some things right but others wrong.
When he mentions the ‘computationally impossible’, that’s only true if there’s proof of work behind it.
Bitcoin’s real innovation is that it’s decentralized, permissionless, borderless, AND has a native token to reward those who secure the ledger. Remove any of these aspects and it’s not any more secure than using dropbox.
What Mr. Howard is suggesting is quite different: permissioned, centralized to a few parties, regulated, and it’s not clear how it’s secured. Proof of stake, proof of work?
One, if not the only distinction of block-chain versus prior db methodology is the multiple copies in different locations, assuring the integrity and security of the ledger transactions.
The key reason B-C is possible is the exponential expansion of storage capacity over the last decade.
I am aware of claim DBs with transaction detail that resides in one location, but backed-up frequently, and stored in essentially the same location… which provides integrity / credibility, but not very much security.
Drawing parallels to Drop-Box and bitcoin isn’t necessary; this is a fairly straightforward concept to grasp. Perspective lost to those who never knew of legacy systems in their organizations make the power of this concept more difficult to grasp.
This is a good example of the efficiency and power of exponential growth of memory/ storage media.
I follow blockchain and bitcoin news very closely, and this article gets some things right but others wrong.
When he mentions the ‘computationally impossible’, that’s only true if there’s proof of work behind it.
Bitcoin’s real innovation is that it’s decentralized, permissionless, borderless, AND has a native token to reward those who secure the ledger. Remove any of these aspects and it’s not any more secure than using dropbox.
What Mr. Howard is suggesting is quite different: permissioned, centralized to a few parties, regulated, and it’s not clear how it’s secured. Proof of stake, proof of work?
I’m interested in hearing more in Part II.
One, if not the only distinction of block-chain versus prior db methodology is the multiple copies in different locations, assuring the integrity and security of the ledger transactions.
The key reason B-C is possible is the exponential expansion of storage capacity over the last decade.
I am aware of claim DBs with transaction detail that resides in one location, but backed-up frequently, and stored in essentially the same location… which provides integrity / credibility, but not very much security.
Drawing parallels to Drop-Box and bitcoin isn’t necessary; this is a fairly straightforward concept to grasp. Perspective lost to those who never knew of legacy systems in their organizations make the power of this concept more difficult to grasp.
This is a good example of the efficiency and power of exponential growth of memory/ storage media.
Nice Article @Howard! it helped me to understand the concept of blockchain and its opportunity in Insurance industry