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.
They don’t have to. If you don’t have database replicas that are actively trying to subvert the system, inject bogus transactions, etc. then you don’t have the set of failure domains for which blockchains are in theory useful for.
If you’re running backups for a single organization, you just need replicated data storage on servers owned and operated by that organization. If you’re running backups for a set of users who all trust your organization (e.g. if you’re Dropbox or the like), you also don’t need blockchain.
I am not talking about back ups but more of dealing with the problems of distributed data in general. I.E. How do you, across a network of intermittent reliability (at a certain scale this is a guarantee not a choice), in sure that a piece of data written to and read by multiple actors is constant and available across the system?
It’s pretty reasonable not to implicitly trust an organization to always get things right or always be honest about what they are doing. Couldn’t there be theoretical value in spreading backups across multiple organizations and having cryptographic evidence they are all doing their jobs correctly, to reduce the need for that trust?
IMO that’s a pretty limiting perspective. The existence of a lot of noise around a technology isn’t a great reason to take a hard stance against ever using it.
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).
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.
that’s my point, most of the time people don’t even know what a blockchain actually is, and the reason they think it’s good is because in their head they imagine something less shit
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.
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?
data owner was the key one here. If I run a storage service for example, I have control of the data, but you would see it as a breech of trust if I deleted your data, or gave access to someone else without your permission, because you in the scenario are the data owner.
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.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
No NSFW content.
Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
Real talk, if this is happening to you often you’ve gotta decline more meetings.
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.
That’s just ceph with extra steps.
What you want in that situation is called a “replicated database”, not a “distributed ledger” and certainly not a “blockchain”.
I haven’t seen a replicated database that operates over the same scale of failure domains as distrubuted ledgers, do you have good examples of that?
They don’t have to. If you don’t have database replicas that are actively trying to subvert the system, inject bogus transactions, etc. then you don’t have the set of failure domains for which blockchains are in theory useful for.
If you’re running backups for a single organization, you just need replicated data storage on servers owned and operated by that organization. If you’re running backups for a set of users who all trust your organization (e.g. if you’re Dropbox or the like), you also don’t need blockchain.
I am not talking about back ups but more of dealing with the problems of distributed data in general. I.E. How do you, across a network of intermittent reliability (at a certain scale this is a guarantee not a choice), in sure that a piece of data written to and read by multiple actors is constant and available across the system?
Spanner.
Cloud only and closed source, right?
I’m pointing at the architecture, not the specific implementation. Build something like Spanner, not something like a blockchain.
It’s pretty reasonable not to implicitly trust an organization to always get things right or always be honest about what they are doing. Couldn’t there be theoretical value in spreading backups across multiple organizations and having cryptographic evidence they are all doing their jobs correctly, to reduce the need for that trust?
Theoretically? Sure. But in reality, blockchain pushers are fanatics, scammers, or both, so no real organization should trust them.
IMO that’s a pretty limiting perspective. The existence of a lot of noise around a technology isn’t a great reason to take a hard stance against ever using it.
If you think you’ve found the one honest snake-oil salesman, you’re almost certainly wrong. That’s part of reality.
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).
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.
Could not have said it better myself
that’s my point, most of the time people don’t even know what a blockchain actually is, and the reason they think it’s good is because in their head they imagine something less shit
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.
Since we are designing the consensus algorithm we could remove data that is expired with some quorum vote, or indication from a key holder.
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?
In practice, data owners don’t have control of their data, sysadmins do. This gets complicated in multi-orgnizational data setups.
the sysadmin is part of the owner
data owner was the key one here. If I run a storage service for example, I have control of the data, but you would see it as a breech of trust if I deleted your data, or gave access to someone else without your permission, because you in the scenario are the data owner.
What even is this job? 😂
Be fired || deal with customers
😰
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.
Your meetings have agendas? That must be nice.
Oh look ! A programmers meme thread has descended into a technical argument.
M E E I N G
I’ve been to some of those. They really suck. Worse than meetings.
My boss holds Meeings all the time. Almost every meeting is about her and how great she is. I will now call these meeting “meeings”.
All those Meeings could have been an emai as well
Memail?
What does the title have to do with the post…?
Well, customers will sometimes ask for certain solutions to be used. Solutions for problems they don’t have…
Solutions that make no sense to the problem they think they have.
suit customer may be worst customer
Customers fall for every hype and want dumb things that don’t make sense to be implemented.
You need to implement the synergistic cloud blockchain.
*synergistic cloud quantum blockchain powered by AI
ON THE METAVERSE
With 16x the details
Needs to be in production by next month.
Ah, so we can leverage acceleration towards actionable efficiency.
Agenda?