Comment on Please Stop
VR20X6@slrpnk.net 6 months agoYeah, you would only need to have every single private key for all nodes that follow you in the supply chain. Super trivial.
Comment on Please Stop
VR20X6@slrpnk.net 6 months agoYeah, you would only need to have every single private key for all nodes that follow you in the supply chain. Super trivial.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 6 months ago
OK. So you are proposing a private blockchain with minimal data validation rules.
How do you decide who gets to add the next record?
You would also need some protection against all nodes sharing their keys.
VR20X6@slrpnk.net 6 months ago
It’s not a blockchain. It’s closer to a series of forwarded emails with certificate signing. Who gets to add the next record? How about the party that is doing that step of processing in the supply chain. And I have a great idea for protecting the keys. It’s called asymmetric key pairs. You can verify a signature using a public key without having the private key required to be able to generate that signature.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 6 months ago
It’s not a blockchain. It’s closer to a series of forwarded emails with certificate signing.
You’ve got hash linked data, private keys, verification procedures, distributed storage. It’s not very sophisticated, but you are definitely on the path to reinventing the blockchain.
Oh, so you want a new database for every item. Let’s have one database handling lots of items and validated in sequence.
Brilliant. And how is your invention different from a private permissioned blockchain?
VR20X6@slrpnk.net 6 months ago
Blockchain is the shitty reinvention of PGP, my dude. I don’t agree to this silly retronym for nearly 50 year old cryptographic methods. Yes, if you remove all the supposed advancements and advantages of blockchain, you’re left with the cryptographic foundation which was the only thing that had merit. Congratulations.