As
the implications of the invention of have become understood, a certain hype has
sprung up around blockchain technology.
This is, perhaps, because it
is so easy to imagine high-level use cases. But, the technology has also been
closely examined: millions of dollars have been spent researching blockchain
technology over the past few years, and numerous tests for whether or not
blockchain technology is appropriate in various scenarios have been
conducted.
Blockchain technology offers
new tools for authentication and authorization in the digital world that
preclude the need for many centralized administrators. As a result,
it enables the creation of new digital relationships.
By formalizing and securing
new digital relationships, the blockchain revolution is posed to create the
backbone of a layer of the internet for transactions and interactions of value
(often called the 'Internet of Value', as opposed to the 'Internet of
Information' which uses the client-server, accounts and master copy databases
we’ve been using for over the past 20 years.)
But, with all the talk of
building the digital backbone of a new transactional layer to the internet,
sometimes blockchains, private cryptographic keys and cryptocurrencies are
simply not the right way to go.
Many groups have created
flowcharts to help a person or entity decide between a blockchain or master
copy, client-server database. The following factors are a distillation of much
of what has been previously done:
Is
the data dynamic with an auditable history?
Paper can be hard to
counterfeit because of the complexity of physical seals or appearances. Like
etching something in stone, paper documents have certain permanence.
But, if the data is in
constant flux, if it is transactions occurring regularly and frequently, then
paper as a medium may not be able to keep up the system of record. Manual
data entry also has human limitations.
So, if the data and its history
are important to the digital relationships they are helping to establish,
then blockchains offer a flexible capacity by enabling many parties to
write new entries into a system of record that is also held by many
custodians.
Should
or can the data be controlled by a central authority?
There remain many reasons why
a third party should be in charge of some authentications and authorizations.
There are times when third-party control is totally appropriate and
desirable. If privacy of the data is the most important consideration, there
are ways to secure data by not even connecting it to a network.
But if existing IT
infrastructure featuring accounts and log-ins is not sufficient for the
security of digital identity, then the problem might be solved by blockchain
technology.
As Satoshi Nakamoto wrote in
his (or her) seminal work, "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System": “Merchants
must be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they
would otherwise need. A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as
unavoidable.”
Private key cryptography
enables push transactions, which don't require centralized systems and the
elaborate accounts used to establish digital relationships. If this database
requires millions of dollars to secure lightweight financial transactions, then
there’s a chance blockchains are the solution.
Is
the speed of the transaction the most important consideration?
Does this database require
high-performance millisecond transactions? (There is more on this point in our
guide: "What is the Difference
Between a Blockchain and a Database?").
If high performance,
millisecond transactions are what is required, then it’s best to stick
with a traditional-model centralized system. Blockchains as databases are slow
and there is a cost to storing the data – the processing (or 'mining') of
every block in a chain. Centralized data systems based on the client-server
model are faster and less expensive… for now.
In short, while we still don’t
know the full limits and possibilities of blockchains, we can at least say the
use cases which have passed inspection have all been about managing and
securing digital relationships as part of a system of record.

No comments
Post a Comment