back to article Linux Foundation assembles gang to build a better Blockchain

The Linux Foundation has decided the time is right to apply its special brand of collaboration to the Blockchain, the distributed ledger technology behind Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. The Foundation is talking up the blockchain as a supply-chain enhancer and electronic-transaction-speeder-upper, thanks to its provision …

  1. Quortney Fortensplibe

    The Problem With the B-b-b-l-l-l-o-o-o-c-c-c-k-k-k-c-c-c-h-h-h-a-a-a-i-i-i-n-n-n... that, since it carries a complete record of all previous transactions, it just keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger. When I last idly messed with a Bitcoin app about two or three years ago, the Blockchain was [if memory serves me right] about 30GB+ then. God know what size it is now.

    The basic concept behind Bitcoin is pure genius, but the increasingly unwieldy Blockchain it has to drag along behind it [in order to validate every transaction] isn't tenable. At the moment it seems everyone is just depending on the fact that increasing internet speeds and bandwidth will keep ahead of the growth of the Blockchain. And the more "other stuff" that starts to piggy back on the back of the Blockchain, to use it for validating all kinds of other 'transactions', the more bloated it's going to get.

    1. PyLETS

      Re: The Problem With the B-b-b-l-l-l-o-o-o-c-c-c-k-k-k-c-c-c-h-h-h-a-a-a-i-i-i-n-n-n...

      While the original Bitcoin may have problems forking itself to make any protocol improvements, theoretically new clients don't need to validate the entirety of all large historical old blocks in order to validate the entire chain. I can't see any reason why an improved protocol can't validate large old blocks through signed hashes - much smaller than the blocks themselves. All the new client has to do on installation is decide to trust principals within the network well known to the software developer which have already signed much smaller hashes of large old blocks and placed these signatures on record. Anyone who wants to download a copy of a large old block can then verify that the block matches the signed hash, and can download the public keys to verify the signatures on these blocks.

      That said, I can see much worse resourcing problems than the occupation of hard disks and large network downloads, with the use of any technology which allocates resources to beneficiaries on the basis of who can consume the most electricity - even if this will inevitably result in more efficient hashing design conducted at large scale.

    2. Ian Michael Gumby

      Re: The Problem With the B-b-b-l-l-l-o-o-o-c-c-c-k-k-k-c-c-c-h-h-h-a-a-a-i-i-i-n-n-n...

      You got down voted in that you don't understand that the current implementation of block chains already handles this by taking a hash of earlier portions in the block chain so that you can keep it shorter than the entire history of the block chain.

      So the block chain isn't unwieldy.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I thought bitcoins were only for fools???

    Quick, someone tell them it’s a tulipmania based Ponzi scheme. While you’re at it also tell SWIFT, Accenture, Intel, State Street, Wells Fargo, the London Stock Exchange, Barclays, Bank of America, BBVA, BMO Bank of Montreal, BNP Paribas, BNY Mellon, CIBC, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Citi, Commerzbank, Credit Suisse, Danske Bank, Deutsche Bank, J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, ING Bank, Intesa Sanpaolo, Macquarie Bank, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Mizuho Financial Group, Morgan Stanley, National Australia Bank, Natixis, Nomura, Nordea, Northern Trust, OP Financial Group, Scotiabank, State Street, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, Royal Bank of Canada, Royal Bank of Scotland, SEB, Societe Generale, Toronto-Dominion Bank, UBS, UniCredit, U.S. Bancorp, Wells Fargo and Westpac Bank. They’ve all been hoodwinked.

    1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      Re: I thought bitcoins were only for fools???

      They’ve all been hoodwinked.

      Wouldn't be the first time.

      I have no strong opinions on cryptocurrencies, but I have one on your argument from authority: it's mighty weak.

  3. TheSkunkyMonk

    The problem is, it is easily centerizized and abused, who ever has the most computing power has charge this was proved when one mining group was raking in all the coin, luckily they had a heart.

  4. channel extended

    Bad news for Govt.

    Once an enterprise level of bitcoin starts being traded between banks this will make the control by central banks harder.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Bad news for Govt.

      we've been sold out one greedy politician at a time

    2. Barry Rueger

      Re: Bad news for Govt.

      "Once an enterprise level of bitcoin starts being traded between banks this will make the control by central banks harder."

      Once upon a time the Greatest Minds Of The Internet® knew, just knew that regular laws didn't apply in cyberspace - stuff like copyright laws, libel and slander etc.

      Turns out they were wrong.

      Problem was this: if there's enough money involved governments will always make it their business to regulate and control things.

  5. Shomas

    Why standardize?

    It's not going to happen. Various blockchain Technologies have their advantages and disadvantages. Each is like a wrench in your toolbox. There is no one-size-fits-all wrench. Crypto currencies, voting systems, and student transcripts each have their unique needs.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like