trentmc

6 ms·

1.
by trentmc 9y ago
Hi, thanks for the thoughts. For "why would I want to use this over a SQL alternative" see [2]. For "what kind of applications can I build with this?" see [1][2][3][4]. Cheers! [1] https://www.bigchaindb.com&#
2.
by trentmc 9y ago
As you'll see in my other comments (and articles on it), "blockchain" is better described as a field with a set of related goals for technology artifacts, rather than a specific data structure [1]. I frame it as: it has block
3.
by trentmc 9y ago
"Truth" of course is a red herring. "Claim" is better. And, "digitally signed claim" is better yet. Then to answer your Q: a good sharding approach should let you see all digitally signed claims (including when
4.
by trentmc 9y ago
Many people disagree about what blockchain technology is. To me, it' about the characteristics, rather than how they're implemented. I see three characteristics: decentralized, immutable, assets [1]. Under this framing, the &quo
5.
by trentmc 9y ago
To me, "blockchain-like" is about getting the benefits of decentralized, immutability (tamper-resistance), and assets. How one goes about getting those characteristics is wide open. Most blockchain systems do have a full copy of
6.
by trentmc 9y ago
> How does this solution respond to someone spinning up a thousand nodes, and simply voting for their double spend attack? This is the classic "Sybil attack". But I bet you knew that:) If you have a member list (ie list of publ
7.
by trentmc 9y ago
You're welcome! :) Also, I encourage you to try out BigchainDB. Within just a few seconds you can send your first transaction to IPDB (BigchainDB public net): https://www.bigchaindb.com/getstarted/ Cheers!
8.
by trentmc 9y ago
Thanks for responding to this query as well. Fully agreed:) BTW we work closely with the Ripple folks (especially on Interledger Protocol) and the iota folks (they're also in Berlin:)
9.
by trentmc 9y ago
Thank you:) Even if there's hype and critique, we can always rise above and maintain our integrity as we build things that matter.
10.
by trentmc 9y ago
+1 :)
11.
by trentmc 9y ago
Hey Tony, great to hear from you! Yes please do check this out, we think it's interesting too:) Also interesting is BigchainDB's sister project www.oceanprotocol.com. Cheers!
12.
by trentmc 9y ago
I should also mention that we've been working on supporting a BFT option. It should be out in the next release or two. https://github.com/bigchaindb/bigchaindb/blob/master/docs/ro...
13.
by trentmc 9y ago
Re (2): this would be a group of people or organizations running nodes together. (If it was just nodes you controlled it misses the point of being decentralized.) You could store sensitive data in this setup, if each person/org had t
14.
by trentmc 9y ago
Oh cool! Thanks for the ping, Dean. I hope you're well. Yeah blockchain space is a bit crazier than EDA, but some of us are engineers bringing our discipline and experience to this new field:) I encourage you to give BigchainDB a whirl
15.
by trentmc 9y ago
Neither sharding nor encryption give "decentralized", "immutable", or "assets". E.g. how many sysadmins can MySQL have? (And the answer is 1. Hence, not decentralized.)
16.
by trentmc 9y ago
I'm not defining "decentralized" as simply "distributed between multiple corporations, where multiple people have read/write access". To be "decentralized", it's key that there are >1 sysadmin
17.
by trentmc 9y ago
Good point! I think the Python folks made a great design choice there. I updated my comment above to help future readers.
18.
by trentmc 9y ago
OK! :)
19.
by trentmc 9y ago
Good point - BigchainDB wraps MongoDB, which is in C++. I updated my comment above to help future readers.
20.
by trentmc 9y ago
Hi, it's Trent here, CTO of BigchainDB. That's a great question. It's surprising how few people are aware of the current German data protection laws (where we're based) and the upcoming EU data protection laws aka GDPR.
21.
by trentmc 9y ago
Hi, it's Trent here, the CTO of blockchain. > I know. I think if I read "scalable" and "blockchain" in the same sentence again I'll scream. I acknowledge the hype out there. FYI we were working on blockchain
22.
by trentmc 9y ago
I totally acknowledge that there are pros and cons for both dynamically and statically typed languages. (We could start a 10 page discussion here. But I've been there before, perhaps you have too, how about we save our energy? ;)
23.
by trentmc 9y ago
(Hi, it's Trent here, CTO of BigchainDB.) We can do a lot better than the scale of Bitcoin. And we are. Scale is part of the point. And you don't need to centralize to get scale. We did improve upon the Model T, didn't we? Or
24.
by trentmc 9y ago
Hi, Trent here, CTO of BigchainDB. Correct, traditional blockchains like Bitcoin aren't scalable. The whole point of BigchainDB is to bring scale to (the database part) of the blockchain space, using the learnings from distributed data
25.
by trentmc 9y ago
Hi, traditional "blockchains" have full replication which of course doesn't scale as you mention. Replication factor of 5000 is overkill (basically what Bitcoin has). Full replication isn't a prerequisite to building som
26.
by trentmc 9y ago
See the comment "Why use Python rather than..." and my response to it. Cheers,
27.
by trentmc 9y ago
Hi, it's Trent here, CTO at BigchainDB. Summary: Python isn't the bottleneck yet, and if it becomes one, C will become the last 1%. I've been working on production apps in Python since 2002, including ones doing large-scale c
28.
by trentmc 9y ago
Perhaps you're looking for an append-only logging / messaging system like Apache Kafka? Good to explore what's out there and understand what's possible. BTW using BigchainDB can feel pretty lightweight: it feels like a D
29.
by trentmc 9y ago
I'm sure you know this but I will clarify for readers: PoW is only one consensus algorithm. Consensus algorithms go back decades. They're powering all the distributed DBs, file systems, etc that power the web. Some are fault toler
30.
by trentmc 9y ago
Hi, it's Trent here, CTO of BigchainDB. FYI we started working on the precursor to this in 2013 (ascribe). Bitcoin hadn't even hit the mainstream then, let alone blockchain. We didn't build it to mash together buzzwords. We b

More ›