Digital ownership on one (1) blockchain. Not really that great when you put it like that. What makes one Blockchain more authoritative than another? Even in a closed system, if you think the admins of these chains don't keep a kill switch in their back pocket specifically for their advantage in ownership conflicts then you should probably read about Ethereum Classic. Even if they don't want to hard fork, if a chain is controlled entirely by a company, then they can edit it however they want regardless since it's not really decentralized. The idea that Blockchains will empower the customer with digital ownership is silly to me.

[–] 4am@lemm.ee -2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Is a chain is controlled by a single entity then it’s not a blockchain, it’s a linked list with extra steps.

The whole point of a blockchain is that it’s independently verifiable/validated by all its users. Anything else is a literal scam.

[–] drcobaltjedi@programming.dev 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Well, a blockchain is a linked list with extra steps. Only having 1 entity just means it is centralized, not decentralized.

[–] gila@lemm.ee -2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

You've almost put all the pieces together. A decentralised linked list is ... ? oh wait

[–] drcobaltjedi@programming.dev 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

A decentrailized linked list.

[–] gila@lemm.ee -1 points 9 months ago

You were supposed to have the eureka moment where you realise that's not a thing, oh well.

[–] Ibaudia@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

A Blockchain is already just a linked list with extra steps.

load more comments (10 replies)

load more comments (69 replies)