Connect with us

Blockchain

Avoiding the pointless blockchain project

Avatar

Published

on

How to determine if you’ve found a real blockchain use case

Blockchains are overhyped. There, I said it. From Sibos to Money20/20 to cover stories of The Economist and Euromoney, everyone seems to be climbing aboard the blockchain wagon. And no doubt like others in the space, we’re seeing a rapidly increasing number of companies building proofs of concept on our platform and/or asking for our help.

As a young startup, you’d think we’d be over the moon. Surely now is the time to raise a ton of money and build that high performance next generation blockchain platform we’ve already designed. What on earth are we waiting for?

I’ll tell you what. We’re waiting to gain a clearer understanding of where blockchains genuinely add value in enterprise IT. You see, a large proportion of these incoming projects have nothing to do with blockchains at all. Here’s how it plays out. Big company hears that blockchains are the next big thing. Big company finds some people internally who are interested in the subject. Big company gives them a budget and tells them to go do something blockchainy. Soon enough they come knocking on our door, waving dollar bills, asking us to help them think up a use case. Say what now?

As for those who do have a project in mind, what’s the problem? In many cases, the project can be implemented perfectly well using a regular relational database. You know, big iron behemoths like Oracle and SQL Server, or for the more open-minded, MySQL and Postgres. So let me start by setting things straight:

If your requirements are fulfilled by today’s relational databases, you’d be insane to use a blockchain.

Why? Because products like Oracle and MySQL have decades of development behind them. They’ve been deployed on millions of servers running trillions of queries. They contain some of the most thoroughly tested, debugged and optimized code on the planet, processing thousands of transactions per second without breaking a sweat.

And what about blockchains? Well, our product was one of the first to market, and has been available for exactly 5 months, with a few thousand downloads. Actually it’s extremely stable, because we built it off Bitcoin Core, the software which powers bitcoin. But even so, this entire product category is still in its diapers.

So am I saying that blockchains are useless? Absolutely not. But before you embark on that shiny blockchain project, you need to have a very clear idea of why you are using a blockchain. There are a bunch of conditions that need to be fulfilled. And if they’re not, you should go back to the drawing board. Maybe you can define the project better. Or maybe you can save everyone a load of time and money, because you don’t need a blockchain at all.

1. The database

Here’s the first rule. Blockchains are a technology for shared databases. So you need to start by knowing why you are using a database, by which I mean a structured repository of information. This can be a traditional relational database, which contains one or more spreadsheet-like tables. Or it can be the trendier NoSQL variety, which works more like a file system or dictionary. (On a theoretical level, NoSQL databases are just a subset of relational databases anyway.)

A ledger for financial assets can be naturally expressed as a database table in which each row represents one asset type owned by one particular entity. Each row has three columns containing: (a) the owner’s identifier such as an account number, (b) an identifier for the asset type such as “USD” or “AAPL”, and (c) the quantity of that asset held by that owner.

Databases are modified via “transactions” which represent a set of changes to the database which must be accepted or rejected as a whole. For example, in the case of an asset ledger, a payment from one user to another is represented by a transaction that deducts the appropriate quantity from one row, and adds it to another.

2. Multiple writers

This one’s easy. Blockchains are a technology for databases with multiple writers. In other words, there needs to be more than one entity which is generating the transactions that modify the database. Do you know who these writers are?

In most cases the writers will also run “nodes” which hold a copy of the database and relay transactions to other nodes in a peer-to-peer fashion. However transactions might also be created by users who are not running a node themselves. Consider for example a payments system which is collectively maintained by a small group of banks but has millions of end users on mobile devices, communicating only with their own bank’s systems.

3. Absence of trust

And now for the third rule. If multiple entities are writing to the database, there also needs to be some degree of mistrust between those entities. In other words, blockchains are a technology for databases with multiple non-trusting writers.

You might think that mistrust only arises between separate organizations, such as the banks trading in a marketplace or the companies involved in a supply chain. But it can also exist within a single large organization, for example between departments or the operations in different countries.

What do I specifically mean by mistrust? I mean that one user is not willing to let another modify database entries which it “owns”. Similarly, when it comes to reading the database’s contents, one user will not accept as gospel the “truth” as reported by another user, because each has different economic or political incentives.

4. Disintermediation

So the problem, as defined so far, is enabling a database with multiple non-trusting writers. And there’s already a well-known solution to this problem: the trusted intermediary. That is, someone who all the writers trust, even if they don’t fully trust each other. Indeed, the world is filled with databases of this nature, such as the ledger of accounts in a bank. Your bank controls the database and ensures that every transaction is valid and authorized by the customer whose funds it moves. No matter how politely you ask, your bank will never let you modify their database directly.

Blockchains remove the need for trusted intermediaries by enabling databases with multiple non-trusting writers to be modified directly. No central gatekeeper is required to verify transactions and authenticate their source. Instead, the definition of a transaction is extended to include a proof of authorization and a proof of validity. Transactions can therefore be independently verified and processed by every node which maintains a copy of the database.

But the question you need to ask is: Do you want or need this disintermediation? Given your use case, is there anything wrong with having a central party who maintains an authoritative database and acts as the transaction gatekeeper? Good reasons to prefer a blockchain-based database over a trusted intermediary might include lower costs, faster transactions, automatic reconciliation, new regulation or a simple inability to find a suitable intermediary.

5. Transaction interaction

So blockchains make sense for databases that are shared by multiple writers who don’t entirely trust each other, and who modify that database directly. But that’s still not enough. Blockchains truly shine where there is some interaction between the transactions created by these writers.

What do I mean by interaction? In the fullest sense, this means that transactions created by different writers often depend on one other. For example, let’s say Alice sends some funds to Bob and then Bob sends some on to Charlie. In this case, Bob’s transaction is dependent on Alice’s one, and there’s no way to verify Bob’s transaction without checking Alice’s first. Because of this dependency, the transactions naturally belong together in a single shared database.

Taking this further, one nice feature of blockchains is that transactions can be created collaboratively by multiple writers, without either party exposing themselves to risk. This is what allows delivery versus payment settlement to be performed safely over a blockchain, without requiring a trusted intermediary.

A good case can also be made for situations where transactions from different writers are cross-correlated with each other, even if they remain independent. One example might be a shared identity database in which multiple entities validate different aspects of consumers’ identities. Although each such certification stands alone, the blockchain provides a useful way to bring everything together in a unified way.

6. Set the rules

This isn’t really a condition, but rather an inevitable consequence of the previous points. If we have a database modified directly by multiple writers, and those writers don’t fully trust each other, then the database must contain embedded rules restricting the transactions performed.

These rules are fundamentally different from the constraints that appear in traditional databases, because they relate to the legitimacy of transformations rather than the state of the database at a particular point in time. Every transaction is checked against these rules by every node in the network, and those that fail are rejected and not relayed on.

Asset ledgers contain a simple example of this type of rule, to prevent transactions creating assets out of thin air. The rule states that the total quantity of each asset in the ledger must be the same before and after every transaction.

7. Pick your validators

So far we’ve described a distributed database in which transactions can originate in many places, propagate between nodes in a peer-to-peer fashion, and are verified by every node independently. So where does a “blockchain” come in? Well, a blockchain’s job is to be the authoritative final transaction log, on whose contents all nodes provably agree.

Why do we need this log? First, it enables newly added nodes to calculate the database’s contents from scratch, without needing to trust another node. Second, it addresses the possibility that some nodes might miss some transactions, due to system downtime or a communications glitch. Without a transaction log, this would cause one node’s database to diverge from that of the others, undermining the goal of a shared database.

Third, it’s possible for two transactions to be in conflict, so that only one can be accepted. A classic example is a double spend in which the same asset is sent to two different recipients. In a peer-to-peer database with no central authority, nodes might have different opinions regarding which transaction to accept, because there is no objective right answer. By requiring transactions to be “confirmed” in a blockchain, we ensure that all nodes converge on the same decision.

Finally, in Ethereum-style blockchains, the precise ordering of transactions plays a crucial role, because every transaction can affect what happens in every subsequent one. In this case the blockchain acts to define the authoritative chronology, without which transactions cannot be processed at all.

A blockchain is literally a chain of blocks, in which each block contains a set of transactions that are confirmed as a group. But who is responsible for choosing the transactions that go into each block? In the kind of “private blockchain” which is suitable for enterprise applications, the answer is a closed group of validators (“miners”) who digitally sign the blocks they create. This whitelisting is combined with some form of distributed consensus scheme to prevent a minority of validators from seizing control of the chain. For example, MultiChain uses a scheme called mining diversity, in which the permitted miners work in a round-robin fashion, with some degree of leniency to allow for non-functioning nodes.

No matter which consensus scheme is used, the validating nodes have far less power than the owner of a traditional centralized database. Validators cannot fake transactions or modify the database in violation of its rules. In an asset ledger, that means they cannot spend other people’s money, nor change the total quantity of assets represented. Nonetheless there are still two ways in which validators can unduly influence a database’s contents:

  • Transaction censorship. If enough of the validators collude maliciously, they can prevent a particular transaction from being confirmed in the blockchain, leaving it permanently in limbo.
  • Biased conflict resolution. If two transactions conflict, the validator who creates the next block decides which transaction is confirmed on the blockchain, causing the other to be rejected. The fair choice would be the transaction that was seen first, but validators can choose based on other factors without revealing this.

Because of these problems, when deploying a blockchain-based database, you need to have a clear idea of who your validators are and why you trust them, collectively if not alone. Depending on the use case, the validators might be chosen as: (a) one or more nodes controlled by a single organization, (b) a core group of organizations that maintain the chain, or (c) every node on the network.

8. Back your assets

If you’ve got this far, you may have noticed that I tend to refer to blockchains as shared databases, rather than the more common “shared ledgers”. Why? Because as a technology, blockchains can be applied to problems far beyond the tracking of asset ownership. Any database which has multiple non-trusting writers can be implemented over a blockchain, without requiring a central intermediary. Examples include shared calendars, wiki-style collaboration and discussion forums.

Having said that, for now it seems that blockchains are mainly of interest to those who track the movement and exchange of financial assets. I can think of two reasons for this: (a) the finance sector is responding to the (in retrospect, minuscule) threat of cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, and (b) an asset ledger is the most simple and natural example of a shared database with interdependent transactions created by multiple non-trusting entities.

If you do want to use a blockchain as an asset ledger, you need to answer one additional crucial question: What is the nature of the assets being moved around? By this I don’t just mean cash or bonds or bills of lading, though of course that’s important as well. The question is rather: Who stands behind the assets represented on the blockchain? If the database says that I own 10 units of something, who will allow me to claim those 10 units in the real world? Who do I sue if I can’t convert what’s written in the blockchain into traditional physical assets? (See this asset agreement for an example.)

The answer, of course, will vary by the use case. For monetary assets, one can imagine custodial banks accepting cash in traditional form, and then crediting the accounts of depositors in a blockchain-powered distributed ledger. In trade finance, letters of credit and bills of lading would be backed by the importer’s bank and the shipping company respectively. And further in the future, we can imagine a time when the primary issuance of corporate bonds takes place directly on a blockchain by the company seeking to raise funds.

Conclusion

As I mentioned in the introduction, if your project does not fulfill every single one of these conditions, you should not be using a blockchain. In the absence of any of the first five, you should consider one of: (a) regular file storage, (b) a centralized database, (c) master–slave database replication, or (d) multiple databases to which users can subscribe.

And if you do fulfill the first five, there’s still work to do. You need to be able to express the rules of your application in terms of the transactions which a database allows. You need to be confident about who you can trust as validators and how you’ll define distributed consensus. And finally, if you’re looking at creating a shared ledger, you need to know who will be backing the assets which that ledger represents.

Got all the answers? Congratulations, you have a real blockchain use case. And we’d love to hear from you.

Please post any comments on LinkedIn. See also this follow up: Four genuine blockchain use cases.

Source: https://www.multichain.com/blog/2015/11/avoiding-pointless-blockchain-project/

Blockchain

TrustToken and Syscoin Partner on a Stablecoin Bridge

Avatar

Published

on

Decentralized marketplace and e-commerce protocol Syscoin has partnered with the stablecoin platform TrustToken.

The goal of the collaboration is to speed up payments and to provide further solutions to Ethereum’s blockchain. It also means that the five stablecoins of TrustToken, namely TUSD, TGBP, THKD, TCAD, and TAUD, will run on Syscoin’s blockchain and be available for users.

A Collaboration Between Syscoin and TrustToken

According to a release shared with CryptoPotato, the popular decentralized marketplace and e-commerce protocol Syscoin has teamed up with stablecoin platform TrustToken.

Right off the bat, this means that the stablecoins provided by the platform will now run on Syscoin’s blockchain as well. These are TUSD, TGBP, THKD, TCAD, and TAUD.

Stablecoins have grown in popularity over the past few months, mainly because of the DeFi boom, where they are used to enable staking, liquidity provision, and so forth. However, there was also an obvious challenge with all of it – scaling. Supposedly, Syscoin is intended to help with that. Using Z-DAG (Zero Confirmation Directed Acyclic Graph), the protocol claims to be able to settle transactions in less than 10 seconds with comparatively low fees.

The partnership will also enable users to mine two cryptocurrencies at the same time – SYS and BTC.

Distribution of the Roles

While Syscoin’s task would be scalability, TrustToken comes in for the stablecoin part. It’s a platform that aims at an open financial system through a selection of stablecoins.

The stablecoins it offers are collateralized, and it has also partnered with Chainlink, as well as other protocols.

The overall partnership is aimed at creating a solution for scalable and secure token payments at a lower risk interoperability with Ethereum’s network. It should make TrustToken’s stablecoins function quicker and cheaper following the enabling of the bridge.

Speaking on the matter was Syscoin’s Foundation Chairman Jag Sidhu, who said:

“Digital assets have growing needs for better usability, robust decentralized security, and a scalable way of ensuring every transaction complies with regulations. Syscoin uniquely aligns with all of these requirements. We look forward to TrustToken’s family of stablecoins becoming future-proof and gaining significant advantage with Syscoin.”

SPECIAL OFFER (Sponsored)
Binance Futures 50 USDT FREE Voucher: Use this link to register & get 10% off fees and 50 USDT when trading 500 USDT (limited offer).

PrimeXBT Special Offer: Use this link to register & enter CRYPTOPOTATO35 code to get 35% free bonus on any deposit up to 1 BTC.

You Might Also Like:


Source: https://cryptopotato.com/trusttoken-and-syscoin-partner-on-a-stablecoin-bridge/

Continue Reading

Blockchain

Visa And BlockFi Partner To Release A Bitcoin Rewards Credit Card

Avatar

Published

on

  • The US-based cryptocurrency lending company BlockFi has partnered with the American multinational financial services corporation Visa to bring Bitcoin to the masses.
  • Bloomberg reported that the two US companies will offer a credit card that rewards clients’ purchases with the primary cryptocurrency, instead of traditional options such as cash and airline miles.
  • Dubbed the Bitcoin Rewards Credit Card, it will allow customers to receive 1.5% of their purchases back in BTC. 
  • Should the user spend more than $3,000 in the first three months after receiving the card, he will be entitled to a bonus of $250 in bitcoin. However, the innovative card will come with a $200 annual fee.
  • Evolve Bank & Trust, a subsidiary of Evolve Bancorp Inc, will be the card’s issuer. All three parties involved plan to launch the card in early 2021.
  • Founder and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of BlockFi, Zac Prince, commented that his company is “excited to add credit cards to our suite of products and expand Bitcoin’s accessibility to a broader set of customers.”
  • With the BlockFi partnership, Visa has doubled-down on its endeavors with bitcoin-related collaborations. Earlier this year, the US giant and the BTC-friendly shopping app Fold launched a Visa co-branded debit card that rewards users with up to 10% of BTC back for every dollar purchase on retailers like Hotels.com, Nike, Starbucks, and Uber. 
  • BlockFi raised $50 million in Series C funding earlier this year, and Morgan Creek Capital’s Anthony ‘Pomp’ Pompliano joined its board of directors.
SPECIAL OFFER (Sponsored)
Binance Futures 50 USDT FREE Voucher: Use this link to register & get 10% off fees and 50 USDT when trading 500 USDT (limited offer).

PrimeXBT Special Offer: Use this link to register & enter CRYPTOPOTATO35 code to get 35% free bonus on any deposit up to 1 BTC.

You Might Also Like:


Source: https://cryptopotato.com/visa-and-blockfi-partner-to-release-a-bitcoin-rewards-credit-card/

Continue Reading

Blockchain

Australian Crypto Exchange Accidentally Exposes Over 270,000 Customer Emails

Avatar

Published

on

The Australian cryptocurrency exchange, BTC Markets, has inadvertently exposed more than 270,000 emails of its customers. The company apologized for the inconvenience and reassured that all other data, including users’ funds, is safe.

BTC Markets Exposes Customers’ Emails

A user going by the Twitter handle Stevosxrp.crypto took it to Jack Dorsey’s social media giant and Reddit to first complain about BTC Markets’ screw up. The Australian-based exchange later confirmed the breach on its official Twitter account.

The statement explained that BTC Markets “uses an external system to send client-wide emails.” Although the exchange has used this service for years “without an incident,” including sending test mails, this time, the testing “didn’t pick up that the sample email addresses in the batch were added to the same email, rather than sent individually.”

Consequently, the names and email addresses of account holders were exposed. BTC Markets claimed that this process was instant; therefore, “it was not possible to stop the batch send once the error was realized.”

The CEO of BTC Markets, Caroline Bowler, later revealed that all account holders were affected because the emails were sent in batches.

Funds Are SAFU, But The Damage Is Done

The exchange said that it will “self-report” to the Office of Australian Information Commissioner and “fully comply with the data breach reporting requirements.” Furthermore, the company plans to conduct an internal review.

Despite the data leak, BTC Markets reassured its users that the platform is still secure, no passwords were revealed, and all customers’ funds are safe.

Nevertheless, the exchange suggested that users’ should enable two-factor authentication (2FA) to enhance the security of their accounts.

None of those reassurances seemed to have an effect on the users, though. The Twitter thread explanation was met with numerous complaints from customers.

While most highlighted their disappointment with having their personal emails and names revealed, some took it a step further. One user claimed that the BTC Markets’ name is “now as good as dog s**t.”

SPECIAL OFFER (Sponsored)
Binance Futures 50 USDT FREE Voucher: Use this link to register & get 10% off fees and 50 USDT when trading 500 USDT (limited offer).

PrimeXBT Special Offer: Use this link to register & enter CRYPTOPOTATO35 code to get 35% free bonus on any deposit up to 1 BTC.

You Might Also Like:


Source: https://cryptopotato.com/australian-crypto-exchange-accidentally-exposes-over-270000-customer-emails/

Continue Reading
Blockchain1 day ago

Greenheart Punt World Debut on DigiFinex

Blockchain4 days ago

Ripple Plans To Cash Out 33% Of Its MoneyGram Stake With A Significant Profit

Blockchain5 days ago

Latin American Bitcoin & Blockchain Conference Reveals Latest Speakers

Blockchain4 days ago

EOS Finds Support above $2.80, Resumes Upside Momentum

Blockchain4 days ago

ECB Lays out ‘Reinvention of Money’ Strategy

Blockchain4 days ago

Coinbase unwilling to participate in Spark’s airdrop

Blockchain4 days ago

Litecoin Price Prediction: LTC/USD Ready to Revisit $80; Further Upside is Limited

Blockchain4 days ago

Bitcoin Price Prediction: BTC/USD Resumes Upside Momentum, Struggles to Break Above $18,000 Price Level

Blockchain4 days ago

South Korea To Postpone Previously Planned Crypto Income Tax

Blockchain4 days ago

Bitcoin: Temporary Correction or No ATH This Year? The Crypto Weekly Market Update

Blockchain2 days ago

Mining City: A Blueprint for Success?

Blockchain4 days ago

Ripple price prediction: XRP to hit $0.67 next, analyst

Blockchain4 days ago

South Korea To Postpone Previously Planned Crypto Income Tax

Blockchain4 days ago

Bitcoin: Temporary Correction or No ATH This Year? The Crypto Weekly Market Update

Blockchain4 days ago

Bitcoin and Crypto Worth $4 Billion Seized From PlusToken Ponzi Group

Blockchain4 days ago

Ethereum Strengthens Polish City’s Emergency Services

Blockchain4 days ago

Bitcoin and Crypto Worth $4 Billion Seized From PlusToken Ponzi Group

Blockchain4 days ago

Bitcoin Price Prediction: BTC/USD Back Above $17,500 Level as the King Coin Recovers

Blockchain4 days ago

Guggenheim Fund Files to Be Able to Invest Up to Almost $500M in Bitcoin Through GBTC

Blockchain4 days ago

Bitcoin: Temporary Correction or No ATH This Year? The Crypto Weekly Market Update

Blockchain13 hours ago

IlCOIN Launches Blockchain-Powered VR First on Steam

Blockchain4 days ago

Guggenheim opens door to bitcoin exposure for $5 billion macro fund via Grayscale GBTC product

Blockchain4 days ago

South Korea To Postpone Previously Planned Crypto Income Tax

Blockchain4 days ago

Trading 212, PayPal Crypto User Ban, BTC and ETH Tank: Editor’s Pick

Blockchain4 days ago

South Korea To Postpone Previously Planned Crypto Income Tax

Blockchain4 days ago

Bitcoin: Temporary Correction or No ATH This Year? The Crypto Weekly Market Update

Blockchain4 days ago

Bitcoin Climbs 5%, Why $18.2K Holds The Key For More Upsides

Blockchain4 days ago

Guggenheim Partners prepares to dip investment fund’s toes into Bitcoin

Blockchain4 days ago

Ripple Plans To Cash Out 33% Of Its MoneyGram Stake With A Significant Profit

Blockchain4 days ago

South Korea To Postpone Previously Planned Crypto Income Tax

Blockchain4 days ago

Guggenheim Partners may be the next big player to bet on Bitcoin

Blockchain4 days ago

Bitcoin: Temporary Correction or No ATH This Year? The Crypto Weekly Market Update

Blockchain4 days ago

Ripple Plans To Cash Out 33% Of Its MoneyGram Stake With A Significant Profit

Blockchain4 days ago

Bitcoin (BTC) Surges 5% Above $18,000 As Guggenheim’s Entry Sparks Excitement

Blockchain4 days ago

Bitcoin and Crypto Worth $4 Billion Seized From PlusToken Ponzi Group

Blockchain4 days ago

South Korea To Postpone Previously Planned Crypto Income Tax

Blockchain4 days ago

South Korea To Postpone Previously Planned Crypto Income Tax

Blockchain4 days ago

Weekend bull trap? Traders remain cautious as Bitcoin price rebounds to $18K

Blockchain4 days ago

Bitcoin Grows By 5%, $18K Level Holds The Key For More Upsides

Trending