ok so here is a good example of using blockchains, where its 1 user, and its not transfering value, but has a purpose/function
imagine your desktop.
...
That's not a block chain. That's a Merkle Tree.
merkle tree is IT science buzzword for how to organise stuff
within a blockblockchain is more descriptive average joe catch phrase for the
chaining of blocksyou know a chaining of blocks is more descriptive for, the blockchain
merkle trees are for INSIDE the block.. heres an easy example
EG 4 transactions/files
[file/tx 1] md5hash: d3a26d6da3d6aed3016c3a23a10f6111 [file/tx 2] md5hash: c3f79c45d3ca76b97216105be5c4ff1a [file/tx 3] md5hash: 3897b59a865d28da0aedecfca8f847fe [file/tx 4] md5hash: fe833b714102e6795cd301d9ac228e35 the merkle tree does this
d3a26d6da3d6aed3016c3a23a10f6111 +
c3f79c45d3ca76b97216105be5c4ff1a =
4757980f55852853aa7d57f8a862a457 3897b59a865d28da0aedecfca8f847fe +
fe833b714102e6795cd301d9ac228e35 =
817458c1b547bc10e613c1e9525ca37b 817458c1b547bc10e613c1e9525ca37b +
4757980f55852853aa7d57f8a862a457 =
f51fb103ec49e2325a5dd476e7821786 where
f51fb103ec49e2325a5dd476e7821786 is the merkle tree organisation of blockdata of block1
you then add the ID of previous block (chaining the blocks)
where its:
merkle1+
blockID0=
blockID1 merkle2+
blockID1=
blockID2 merkle3+
blockID2=
blockID3a merkle tree is like (inside a block)
X / \/\ /\ a blockchain is just (more so)
/X /X/X
saying they dont is like saying that cloud storage is not needed because single host FTP worked fine for years.
but here is the thing. even the single hosted FTP owners disliked when their servers crashed and all customer data was inaccessible, so even they like distributed data.
Keeping a backup of user data is the solution to this problem. Using blockchain is the same exact thing as keeping a backup but only with extra complications that increase the cost for absolutely no reason or benefit!
blockchains is about the data security/integrity. its not about backup. being able to check a hash of data, can see data variations because a hash wont match a new hash.
EG you dont have to copy 2 files and run a word-for-word comparison, looking for differences.
you just hash 2 files and check the hashes match
local user hash his file, remote user hashs their file. they only exchange the hash. they only check the hash
security businesses with a single database employee log-in database, want not only distributed backups, but also a way to check the database isnt edited at any of the remote sites. and ensure that no employee can edit the database without being noticed.
Same as above. Not to mention that "distributed backup" has nothing to do with blockchain.
this part is true. people can distribute blockchains of file hashes without having to send all the files.
EG if i had a file hash blockchain on a usb drive (small file) i can then compare it to the actual files hashes days later on my PC and see if they match
first would be to check the top hash(rpresenting all files. matches the all files hash of my PC and instantly know if any changes have been made. and if so, then compare the file hashes between USB and desktop to see which file has been changed. all without having to open each file and read all the word document for edits or viewing all pixels of a photo
even international airport security want access to world wide data but also ensure everyone has the same copy where one location cant just edit their copy and be unnoticed.
It won't work because the world wide data should be modified by individual entities then shared amongst themselves. For example a country should be able to modify their own data and then share it instead of having to always coordinate with others and change it globally.
Again even a global database, even a distributed one has nothing to do with blockchain.
if there is no file security or data integrity, a airport in dubai can change its record and be different to an airport version in NY. blockchain adds the security to lock data to a hash and so comparing hashs is easier then asking for whole files just to compare
there are many real cases where blockchains offer a simple extra layer of security to standard database models.
No they don't. If extra layer of security is needed, it can be and is added on top of existing database solutions without needing the complications of blockchain.
i know you dont like blockchains. but guess what extra security is added ontop of existing database, blockchain. so that you can see the hash of the database to check against a hash of a remote database without having to send the actual databases just to check
yep just to check peers data. you dont ned to resend a whole database. you just need to send the latest hash
if 5/5 locations have the same hash as you, then boom, you al have the same data
if your the odd one out of a 4/5 check, then your data is wrong.
this is all done without asking for 5 copies of complete database files
blockchains dont even need to be from genesis to eternity. there are ways that the block hash is based on just 50 blocks in length where the oldest block drops when the newest(50th) block is added. meaning a perpetual chain of only 50 blocks chained together.
That's not a blockchain anymore, that is the traditional definition of a database that can be updated.
guess your missing the benefit of the hashs.
c. the first actual relief into tonga was paid in $$
tonga wont have internet for 2 weeks, meaning no btc in tonga
No internet means no $$ either unless they put all the $$ in big bags and transferred it to Tonga LOL
if new zealand can reach into its $$ pockets and pay the navy to ride a plane/boat to tonga.. then tonga gets supplies because of $$(today and tomorrow).
Lord F should be converting out or spending btc each day to do the same thing. and get support to tonga(now).
thats all im saying.
Lord F is on twitter pretty much every hour giving thanks for donations and tweeting about NFT and AI. but as of yet he has not organised a supply trip to tonga financed by crypto. and he cant send crypto to tonga.. because they have no internet
thats all im saying
i know you want to say that blockchains are dead/defunct tech..
but in the early 2000's cypherpunks said channels were flawed, and they seen the beauty of blockchains for its security benefits of preventing cheating
[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]