Hacker News Reader

That is correct, but a non-distributed blockchain (i.e. something you use locally) sounds like a something that can also be solved by using a database or even your filesystem.

I'm not saying blockchains are bad technology, non-distributed blockchains can be a very good solution to certain problems, but it's not the "world changing" revolution many claim it to be.

View on HN

What? What would be the point of a non-distributed blockchain? Fundamentally, blockchains are a solution to the distributed consensus problem, where you're not guaranteed anything on the length of time it takes to communicate between two nodes. Also known as asynchronous consensus.

If you're local (or within a small network with bounded, you don't really need asynchronous consensus. Dolev-Strong or any number of other synchronous/semi-synchronous protocols would work fine.

I think LeonM's point WAS that it's unnecessary to qualify "blockchain" with distributed, because as you say, it would be relaively pointless otherwise.

I was more remarking upon

> non-distributed blockchains can be a very good solution to certain problems

Reply on news.ycombinator.com