Where would the data have survived? Colonial would have to be paying someone to hold their extra nodes, in which case....they could've just paid to hold backups anyway.
Re:Microsoft Retires Azure Blockchain
by dvfjsdhgfv on Tuesday June 08, 2021 @04:14AM
(#27431825)
> Colonial could have just brought in more nodes under a blockchain system
How is that different from having backup copies with a third party? Organizations really need to learn how to make ransmoware-proof backups. Blockchain has many uses but by itself won't protect anyone against ransomware attacks.
It's not different. Like I said, it's just classic blockchain handwaving.
> Don't we argue against centralization on HN all of the time?
No, we argue the right paradigm for the right use case. Both centralization and decentralization have their pros and cons. But the blockchain decentralize-all-the-things group think is just people who don't quite grasp the tech being blinded by the hype.
What you've described (adding more nodes) is just classic DR: spin up your infra from append-only backups in a warm site, or better yet, failover to a hot site with minimal downtime.
Don't we argue against centralization on HN all of the time? There's so many good arguments against putting everything you rely on onto one server that can get bopped by random Ukrainian teenagers.