• @db2
    link
    471 year ago

    You need to implement the synergistic cloud blockchain.

  • @adj16
    link
    English
    381 year ago

    M E E I N G

  • @doublejay1999
    link
    71 year ago

    Oh look ! A programmers meme thread has descended into a technical argument.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -261 year ago

    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.

    • @fubo
      link
      46
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      What you want in that situation is called a “replicated database”, not a “distributed ledger” and certainly not a “blockchain”.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        14
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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).

        • @fubo
          link
          241 year ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            121 year ago

            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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        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?

        • @fubo
          link
          10
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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?

            • @fubo
              link
              61 year ago

              Theoretically? Sure. But in reality, blockchain pushers are fanatics, scammers, or both, so no real organization should trust them.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                -11 year ago

                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.

                • @fubo
                  link
                  41 year ago

                  If you think you’ve found the one honest snake-oil salesman, you’re almost certainly wrong. That’s part of reality.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            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?

                • @fubo
                  link
                  11 year ago

                  I’m pointing at the architecture, not the specific implementation. Build something like Spanner, not something like a blockchain.

    • @marcos
      link
      91 year ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -101 year ago

        Since we are designing the consensus algorithm we could remove data that is expired with some quorum vote, or indication from a key holder.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          191 year ago

          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?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            In practice, data owners don’t have control of their data, sysadmins do. This gets complicated in multi-orgnizational data setups.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                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.