Re:Blockchain: A Better Way to Track Pork Chops, Bonds, Bad ...
by elcritch on Sunday March 19, 2017 @06:53PM
(#13910225)
The ability to rollback "bad" transactions would be key in being able to comply with legal requirements, resolve contract disputes, etc. Plus having Sybil proof systems require PoW or PoS both of which could be difficult and inefficient for a market specific solution. E.g. why would people want to run a miner for pork chop trading? PoS might work though but still requires a founding core group that's trusted IMHO.
Re:Blockchain: A Better Way to Track Pork Chops, Bonds, Bad ...
by Jabanga on Monday March 20, 2017 @07:04AM
(#13913121)
When was Ethereum proven to be insecure? It was proven that not all third party applications built on top of Ethereum are secure. That doesn't prove that they can't be secure. Arguing that Ethereum is insecure because a contract written on top of it had a bug is like arguing that the US dollar is insecure because a bank storing it was robbed.
Re:Blockchain: A Better Way to Track Pork Chops, Bonds, Bad ...
by UweSchmidt on Monday March 20, 2017 @05:25PM
(#13917799)
I meant the third party applications (which a pork chop tracking system would be). The pure blockchain crypto should be safe.
But do you enjoy reading something like this [1]? Can you analyze blockchain code like that? Ideally before you know that there's a bug?
It's on Ethereum to show how to make things secure. The general level of software buggyness is inacceptable if you say "code is law".
[1] http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/06/18/analysis-of-the-dao...
If there is a benefit in using blockchain to track pork chops, and if all the pork chop companies know and kinda-trust each other already, a private blockchain could keep the hackers out and implement various security schemes, and maybe even have a board that could publicly organize a rollback to undo a "DAO-hack". (As seen with Ethereum, such a "board" exists implicitly anyway even in a public blockchain system).