It’s not still the early days of blockchain

Re:It’s not still the early days of blockchain by CRConrad on Monday January 17, 2022 @07:48PM (#29973500)

> since an enterprise blockchain is append-only, immutable, time-stamped, and each new entry has a hash of the previous view, it overcomes a lot of data integrity issues inherent to a distributed SQL database.

And why couldn't a distributed SQL database be append-only, immutable, time-stamped, and implemented so each new entry has a hash of the previous state? (If you own it, just set it up to disallow updates or deletes, and allow inserts only through a trigger / stored procedure that adds the timestamp and hash.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It’s not still the early days of blockchain by freeone3000 on Tuesday January 18, 2022 @02:12PM (#29984190)

It could, and then it'd be a blockchain in SQL, like MSSQL's BLOCKCHAIN table type. Those features are definitional to a blockchain.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It’s not still the early days of blockchain by CRConrad on Wednesday January 19, 2022 @05:35AM (#29991983)

I take it using that data type in MS SQL Server doesn't use as much electricity as a small country, though?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It’s not still the early days of blockchain by tomc1985 on Thursday January 20, 2022 @12:27PM (#30011871)

Yeah but it's not nearly as sexy

[ Parent | on HN ]