News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Rhetoric around the blockchain hints at problems with tec... by wpietri on Tuesday May 15, 2018 @09:28AM (#17073723)
With the important exception that there are no blocks. If you're doing transactions one at a time, it's just a long ledger with checksums. Which are just a timesaving techinque so you don't have to replay log segments and compare with snapshots.

In practice, many of these organizations talking about using in-house blockchains have legal trust relationships and systems of laws in common, and they won't only be relying on a transaction log to make sure the record isn't getting fiddled.

And often the threat model isn't related to changing the historical ledger anyhow; there is a lot of fraud, embezzlement, and other financial crime that attacks other points in the system. That requires a significant system of financial controls, which will be sufficient to catch ledger tampering as well. Meaning that the checksums become a modest nice-to-have, not a significant anti-fraud technique.

Re:Rhetoric around the blockchain hints at problems with tec... by marknadal on Tuesday May 15, 2018 @12:57PM (#17075413)
Okay, that is an interesting and fair point.

You are saying because these types of verified logs can't control for other variables, they do not represent a "complete" set of the system, and therefore aren't as useful for fraud analysis? Hmm.

But this is where I feel like calling a cryptocurrency economic model a "blockchain" is just a silly misappropriation of a word. To me, clearly "blockchain" is not like "capital" or "communes", a blockchain is a cryptographically verified data structure. However, I do hear a lot of people throwing around the word "blockchain" just to reference an economic model, which seems excessive.

I like your point though, and well described.