> You talked about bitcoin. That's entirely different to a "private blockchain".
I never said they were the same, however the similarity is that they are both blockchain systems. And you cannot achieve the same with git for exactly the same reason (you cna't trust all parties).
> Or are you suggesting proof of work or something?
Nope, definitely not. Not sure what made you think that?
> Find a single example where a (precisely defined) type of blockchain makes sense vs possible alternatives such as solutions along the lines of Git, CT, etc. I conjecture that there are none beyond cryptocurrency.
There are loads all over commodity trade finance and supply chain (the field I have experience). But I've spend an hour typing an answer out your initial question:
> Exercise for the blockchain advocates: explain as simply as possible why a “private blockchain” is better than Git.
And now you state you aren't really interested in that explanation and want to have clarification on something completely different.
I'm done with typing out "examples and clarifications" when as soon as I do you start asking a different question, never going into my points. So "I am exiting out of this conversation :-)"
I know why you would use a blockchain: for cryptocurrency like bitcoin. As I say, I conjecture there are no other applications.
You made me think you might be suggesting some proof of work scheme instead of "proof of authority" because the example you chose was bitcoin. You also said: "You need to align incentives in a way that breaking the complete system is infeasible from a financial point of view.". So that's why I thought of it. Apologies if I was mistaken.
I don't quite understand why this conversation is getting heated for you. Perhaps because it is your career so you feel personally attacked or something. That's not my intention. Anyways, I'm still none the wiser as to why to use a "private blockchain". Blocking commits or whatever isn't really solved by a private blockchain. You don't need a blockchain for the problem of changing the order people said things either. And how many banking consortia were really moaning about these issues before a blockchain came along? A blockchain seems like a solution looking for a problem most of the time.
Comments like this:
> Blockchain proponents say that once you have a stable decentralized system that can run any code and cannot be corrupted in any way, you will see innovation flourishing similar to the internet: the internet brought complete freedom of information (and industries build on top were not imaginable in the 80s), some people think the blockchain will bring freedom to anything that is (or should be) scarce. Like money and commodities.
Comparing blockchain to the internet? I think that is just crazy la la land. I really hope I'm wrong because that sounds amazing. (Although I have no idea what "that" is, but the internet was a good thing and I like good things.) But I'm definitely not.
Not going into the topic, just the discussion itself.
I'm totally fine, hope you are too. I don't feel personally attacked at all. But on the internet a thick skin is required. I hope you don't feel attacked either.
> Anyways, I'm still none the wiser as to why to use a "private blockchain" but I agree with you that we should stop.
That's unfortunate, I hope you do understand one day. I won't go into it now since you started with a different question (or technically an exercise). And after my lengthy attempt in explaining it you expressed that you don't actually care and instead ask questions about consensus algorithms used in different blockchains (like PoW and PoA) - which has nothing to do with why one uses a blockchain and not git.
So please next time if you are interested in something, don't start by asking something else. After that trying to steer the conversation towards your hidden objective all while you are accusing the other side of "moving the target" (you are moving the target from git towards consensus algorithms and blockchain use cases).
I hope I understand too. I hope blockchains become as useful as the hype suggests. But I bet my career on it that it won't. Let's set a reminder for 10 years and see what happens? :-) We could bake a bet into a smart contract. (Actually we probably couldn't.)
Honestly I'm also quite skeptical, I share your view.
Though I believe the deciding factors aren't very technical. For public projects it all depends on what people want (in reaction to government control, surveillance, financial and capital controls)
And for private blockchains in my experience (in finance anyway) it all depends on the regulators and what they will allow. They are also reacting to whatever is happening in the world.
I never said they were the same, however the similarity is that they are both blockchain systems. And you cannot achieve the same with git for exactly the same reason (you cna't trust all parties).
> Or are you suggesting proof of work or something?
Nope, definitely not. Not sure what made you think that?
> Find a single example where a (precisely defined) type of blockchain makes sense vs possible alternatives such as solutions along the lines of Git, CT, etc. I conjecture that there are none beyond cryptocurrency.
There are loads all over commodity trade finance and supply chain (the field I have experience). But I've spend an hour typing an answer out your initial question:
> Exercise for the blockchain advocates: explain as simply as possible why a “private blockchain” is better than Git.
And now you state you aren't really interested in that explanation and want to have clarification on something completely different.
I'm done with typing out "examples and clarifications" when as soon as I do you start asking a different question, never going into my points. So "I am exiting out of this conversation :-)"