Topic: It is possible to have a blockchain without bitcoin - page 2. (Read 2228 times)
Some of you are missing the point. I am not talking about a crypto currency blockchain, but a blockchain with other storage uses.
you'd have to change its core obviously, it'd be a different thing then
Maybe yes, bitcoin can die but the "technology" under it the blockchain can be adjusted and bitcoin (BTC) can be replaced with another one (maybe better than the actual, who knows).
We will know what will happen to blockchain after the next block reward halving, if there is not incentive to mine .... why the miner should "mine"? Only to support the network, and who will pay the bills?
We will know what will happen to blockchain after the next block reward halving, if there is not incentive to mine .... why the miner should "mine"? Only to support the network, and who will pay the bills?
I might be going against the flow here. I believe you can have a secure blockchain without rewards in crypto currency. Miners just need a reward. Doesn't have to be a crypto. Miners can be paid in fiat or coupons, in OP's case, goverment fiat money. It's like submitting hashes to a pool, the pool pays fiat, not crypto.
Of course you can have a blockchain without bitcoin,blockchain is considered one of the most revolutionary technologies of last years.
You don't have why having miners,you can have POS systems for example
You don't have why having miners,you can have POS systems for example
Short answer: no.
Longer answer: Andreas Antonopoulos explains why we can't have the blockchain without Bitcoin.
Longer answer: Andreas Antonopoulos explains why we can't have the blockchain without Bitcoin.
What people are not understanding is that to trust an RDBMS means to trust a single server (or a cluster if you want to complicate the meaning but it doesn't really change it).
The entire point of a blockchain is that there is "no central server".
Banks could find blockchains useful for international money transfers/settlements (but they would be of no interest for banks to use domestically as blockchain systems are very inefficient compared to just using an RDBMS).
If you just think about it for a second it should be obvious that no bank from one country is going to want to trust a bank from another country so if you have a system that requires zero trust (and is not reversible) then that is actually quite helpful to the banks (they have been a bit slow to realise this so far).
The entire point of a blockchain is that there is "no central server".
Banks could find blockchains useful for international money transfers/settlements (but they would be of no interest for banks to use domestically as blockchain systems are very inefficient compared to just using an RDBMS).
If you just think about it for a second it should be obvious that no bank from one country is going to want to trust a bank from another country so if you have a system that requires zero trust (and is not reversible) then that is actually quite helpful to the banks (they have been a bit slow to realise this so far).
thanks, good and helpfull response
What people are not understanding is that to trust an RDBMS means to trust a single server (or a cluster if you want to complicate the meaning but it doesn't really change it).
The entire point of a blockchain is that there is "no central server".
Banks could find blockchains useful for international money transfers/settlements (but they would be of no interest for banks to use domestically as blockchain systems are very inefficient compared to just using an RDBMS).
If you just think about it for a second it should be obvious that no bank from one country is going to want to trust a bank from another country so if you have a system that requires zero trust (and is not reversible) then that is actually quite helpful to the banks (they have been a bit slow to realise this so far).
The entire point of a blockchain is that there is "no central server".
Banks could find blockchains useful for international money transfers/settlements (but they would be of no interest for banks to use domestically as blockchain systems are very inefficient compared to just using an RDBMS).
If you just think about it for a second it should be obvious that no bank from one country is going to want to trust a bank from another country so if you have a system that requires zero trust (and is not reversible) then that is actually quite helpful to the banks (they have been a bit slow to realise this so far).
There're good stuff here about this topic, you should check it: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/316sdy/to_ibm_stop_this_blockchain_nonsense_it_will/
Quote
So IBM & Banks - for your information - you are wasting your time, the "blockchain technology without bitcoin" thing was already invented 40 years ago and it is called Relational database management system.
Having a blockchain without Bitcoin (read: without miners) has completely no sense at all, it is extremely slow, extremely inefficient and extremely insecure and has totally no advantages over RDBMS.
Having a blockchain without Bitcoin (read: without miners) has completely no sense at all, it is extremely slow, extremely inefficient and extremely insecure and has totally no advantages over RDBMS.
It will either be all pre-mined or only certain institutions will be allowed to mine (ex. banks, treasuries, agencies).
That would be the likely case - it does make sense for governments to consider replacing the antiquated SWIFT system (which is anything but swift) with an inter-government blockchain (if they don't want to use Bitcoin itself for this).
If the 'miners' are paid with tax money - much like how the DNS servers work.
No it is not. The blockchain needs a currency to get paid and incentive the mining.Your talking about a Government Owned Controlled Crypto-Currency. If that happens, there will be no individual miners.
It will either be all pre-mined or only certain institutions will be allowed to mine (ex. banks, treasuries, agencies).
If the 'miners' are paid with tax money - much like how the DNS servers work.
No it is not. The blockchain needs a currency to get paid and incentive the mining.
If the 'miners' are paid with tax money - much like how the DNS servers work.
No it is not. The blockchain needs a currency to get paid and incentive the mining.Then what will these "miners" do if we pay them with dollars? What will be the point of their "mining" if there will be nothing to mine at all? That would be meaningless and pointless per se.
If the 'miners' are paid with tax money - much like how the DNS servers work.
No it is not. The blockchain needs a currency to get paid and incentive the mining.
there is no blockchain without tokens(bitcoin)
they are tied together and the block reward for the miner need both to work
and this could also lead us to think why banks don't love bitcoin, becuase they are aiming at doing their own corrency, seeing how they are working on blockchain technology
and this could also lead us to think why banks don't love bitcoin, becuase they are aiming at doing their own corrency, seeing how they are working on blockchain technology
It's possible...
Let's say a group of companies, for whatever purpose, require a blockchain to survive. Said group of companies then pool together resources to mine their own blockchain.
The reward, for the miners (aka themselves) would be the continued existence of their company, since we assumed that the company requires blockchain technology to survive, for whatever purpose.
Let's say a group of companies, for whatever purpose, require a blockchain to survive. Said group of companies then pool together resources to mine their own blockchain.
The reward, for the miners (aka themselves) would be the continued existence of their company, since we assumed that the company requires blockchain technology to survive, for whatever purpose.
It would be interesting to know what purpose that would be.
It's possible...
Let's say a group of companies, for whatever purpose, require a blockchain to survive. Said group of companies then pool together resources to mine their own blockchain.
The reward, for the miners (aka themselves) would be the continued existence of their company, since we assumed that the company requires blockchain technology to survive, for whatever purpose.
Let's say a group of companies, for whatever purpose, require a blockchain to survive. Said group of companies then pool together resources to mine their own blockchain.
The reward, for the miners (aka themselves) would be the continued existence of their company, since we assumed that the company requires blockchain technology to survive, for whatever purpose.
If the 'miners' are paid with tax money - much like how the DNS servers work.
No it is not. The blockchain needs a currency to get paid and incentive the mining.Exactly, if there is no value/incentive in supporting the network, then the network will become weak and vulnerable. While it would be technically possible to create a blockchain without bitcoin, it would defeat the point of having a blockchain in the first place.
EDIT: If the miners were paid with tax money, then the blockchain would become centralized, and therefore pointless.
If the 'miners' are paid with tax money - much like how the DNS servers work.
No it is not. The blockchain needs a currency to get paid and incentive the mining. Jump to: