• Fedora@lemmy.haigner.me
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I was in a meeting with an external company once that sells NFTs. Yes, it was fun. Yes, the only reason I was there is 'cause I thought I’d be hilarious. Yes, I wrote money laundering into their interactive word cloud, and others wrote similar thoughts. Plz buy this jewelry for $500 so that you can use that virtually in Zoom. Some are convinced that Blockchain is the future. Others not so much.

    Future Squidward Meme

  • Steeve@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Real talk, if this is happening to you often you’ve gotta decline more meetings.

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    honestly a distributed ledger makes alot of sense for backups, having a swarm of backup nodes which replicate your backup data… good resiliency and geographic distribution.

    • fubo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      What you want in that situation is called a “replicated database”, not a “distributed ledger” and certainly not a “blockchain”.

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        99.999% of the time what people imagine when they say blockchain is good is effectively just the matrix protocol, which can be summarized as federated eventually consistent databases (and that’s pretty dang neato).

        • fubo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          1 year ago

          If a single organization owns all the servers, there’s not even in theory a reason to prefer blockchain over a plain replicated database. And in practice anyone who’s pushing blockchain is either an ideologue or a scammer; either way they don’t have the user’s best interests at heart.

    • marcos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      It makes no sense at all to distribute the backup generation step, and what do you do with your ledger once the retention period ends?

      There may be something you can do with a ledger in the “full - incremental - incremental - incremental …” cycle, but I can’t think of anything that’s actually useful.

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Since we are designing the consensus algorithm we could remove data that is expired with some quorum vote, or indication from a key holder.

        • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          1 year ago

          or you could just not do that, and keep control of your own data. Why the hell would I want you to have a vote on whether I can delete my private data, which for some unfathomable reason, someone decided everyone should have a copy of?