Slashdot Mirror


Blockchain Brings Business Boom To IBM, Oracle, and Microsoft (fortune.com)

An anonymous reader quotes Fortune's new report on blockchain: Demand for the technology, best known for supporting bitcoin, is growing so much that it will be one of the largest users of capacity next year at about 60 data centers that IBM rents out to other companies around the globe. IBM was one of the first big companies to see blockchain's promise, contributing code to an open-source effort and encouraging startups to try the technology on its cloud for free. That a 106-year-old company like IBM is going all in on blockchain shows just how far the digital ledger has come since its early days underpinning bitcoin drug deals on the dark web. The market for blockchain-related products and services will reach $7.7 billion in 2022, up from $242 million last year, according to researcher Markets & Markets.

That's creating new opportunities for some of the old warships of the technology world, companies like IBM and Microsoft Corp. that are making the transition to cloud services. And products that had gone out of vogue, such as databases sold by Oracle Corp., are becoming sexy again... In October, Oracle announced the formation of Oracle Blockchain Cloud Service, which helps customers extend existing applications like enterprise-resource management systems. A month earlier, rival SAP SE said clients in industries like manufacturing and supply chain were testing its cloud service. And on Nov. 20, Microsoft expanded its partnership with consortium R3 to make it easier for financial institutions to deploy blockchains in its Azure cloud. Big Blue, meanwhile, has been one of key companies behind the Hyperledger consortium, a nonprofit open-source project that aims to create efficient standards for commercial use of blockchain technology.

A Juniper Research survey found six in 10 larger corporations are considering blockchain, according to the article, which adds that blockchain "is increasingly being tested or used by companies such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Visa Inc. to streamline supply chain, speed up payments and store records."

And because of blockchain's popularity, the CEO of WinterGreen Research predicts that 55% of large companies with over 1,000 employees will use the cloud rather than their own data centers within five years -- up from 17% today.

94 comments

  1. Seriously?! by Dorianny · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Its the .com craze all over again

    1. Re:Seriously?! by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No kidding. Remember the PHB from Dilbert asking for "a database" because apparently that's what the company needs. I thought it was a great joke, but now I've heard something similar more than once, from managers and from people who really ought to know better: "We need to do something with blockchain". By the way, I found a good answer to that is not "what", but "why".

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:Seriously?! by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      A database? Any particular colour?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Seriously?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has someone made porn coin yet?

      https://steemit.com/@safetony

    4. Re: Seriously?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i have a facebook contact who invested a small amount of money in bitcoin; now i see posts from her that have silly tags like #blockchain and #cryptolife; she must be diversifying away from the body-wrap thing;

    5. Re:Seriously?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dotcom to Web 2.0 to Cloud to Blockchain.

    6. Re:Seriously?! by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      For my career, it was "push technology."

      A PHB talked upper management into adopting a document handling system but the users weren't migrating from the old to the new.

      He told me to motivate the users to use the new piece of crap.

      I asked, "How, exactly, do you want ME to sell YOUR idea?"

      (not making this up)

      He said, "Get tough with them. Use push technology !"

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    7. Re:Seriously?! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Beige of course.

    8. Re: Seriously?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw it on the ico list I'm pretty sure. Check out the list of icos to find your answer

    9. Re:Seriously?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is worse is that Blockchain and Bitcoin are interchangeably used, when they are quite different.

      Blockchain as a data structure has a very narrow and specific use (decentralized public ledgers). There are very few places where one would even consider using it, and "private" blockchain (ie. your bank using it internally) makes almost no sense at all given the bank already has a ledger database that doesn't need the hashing verification. I'm dumbfounded when large private companies make announcements about using blockchain, very clearly it is buzzword bingo for the ignorant.

    10. Re:Seriously?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have seen several legit uses for using a blockchain for real world purposes. Theres a few issues though, 1 will the entire thing eventually collapse due to the big ones that are really starting to drag the entire thing down, and 2 will people actually use these new methods over traditional currency to possibly circumvent current regulations that currently costs a company more? Right now one of the big ones I can see blowing up is gambling, there are a few coming this year that will offer full online gambling with several advantages over current offerings, 1 of the biggest is that payout would be instant instead of the week or 2 to withdrawal from current places. Its a crazy new world right now and if you really look at some of the companies trying to be the next big thing you will see some really clever and useful ideas, again it all depends upon if this entire thing actually survives and doesnt implode on its self.

    11. Re:Seriously?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I get mine in cornflower blue?

  2. I think people just like saying "blockchain" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know what we called it 20 years ago? DHT.

    1. Re:I think people just like saying "blockchain" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The whole concept (as far as computing goes) of Merkel Trees was patented in 1979. Many, MANY things have used it since then. "Blockchain" somehow managed to hit that magic sounds-more-awesome-than-it-is level of buzzwordiness AND it is an actual purchasable thing! Unlike synergy/paradigm/diversity/holistic ...

      In particular, it doesn't surprise me to see Oracle and IBM on this list. They'll happily whore themselves out for a quick buck, with the promise of additional lawsuit settlement dollars to come afterwards.

    2. Re:I think people just like saying "blockchain" by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not the same thing:

      https://stackoverflow.com/ques...

      However blockchain technology is still overhyped, because private blockchains are just inefficient databases. There's no good reason to use them where there is no trust problem between peers, so there are only a few niche industries where a blockchain would be helpful, such as digital notary services.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:I think people just like saying "blockchain" by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      Trusted 3rd parties are multi-trillion dollar opportunities.

    4. Re:I think people just like saying "blockchain" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Overhyped databases, I agree it appears so in some cases (ie hyperledger, Ethereum I'm on fence)... However, "niche" in this case includes practically all major logistic companies (that I know of) ... and _all_ parties involved in these chains work on basis of "no trust".

    5. Re: I think people just like saying "blockchain" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Merkel trees are not blockchains. That is like comparing hashing to finding hash collisions.

    6. Re: I think people just like saying "blockchain" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Merkel tree nodes are referenced in each block of the bitcoin block chain. Merkel trees track the distribution of the compute. You are correct that they are different, but bitcoin implementations of blockchain use merkel.

    7. Re: I think people just like saying "blockchain" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As if Banks trust each other?

  3. Surest sign it's in bubble/tulip territory by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    IBM is going all in

    Really? From the article we read "The market for blockchain-related products and services [were] $242 million last year". IBM's revenues last year were around $80 BILLION. The entire block-chain market for products and services was about 0.3% of all of IBM's revenues. That's a VERY interesting definition of "all in" and clearly just an attempt to justify the unstable blockchain market however it can. In this case, by finding a way to hitch itself to a 100+ year old name...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re: Surest sign it's in bubble/tulip territory by Wycliffe · · Score: 0

      That 242 million figure is way low. The value of cryptocurrencies currently sits at around 400 billion. Just the value of the servers and data centers mining cryptocurrencies likely exceeds the $242 million as does the daily trading volume of bitcoin.

    2. Re: Surest sign it's in bubble/tulip territory by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So if TFS gets a basic fact wrong, how can we trust it's conclusion that IBM is going "all in"? Again, this reads more like a cheerleader article rather than anything remotely factual...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    3. Re: Surest sign it's in bubble/tulip territory by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Because this is about other uses for blockchains and not about cryptocurrencies or miners at all.

  4. Blockchain = Web 5.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With React Bootstrap CGI-BIN and optimized for Netscape Navigator gold.

    We will now mine blockchain coins on your 386 running Windows 3.1, welcome to the vaporwave blockchain.

  5. Blockchain! But, blockchained blockchain, too. by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Funny

    For my blockchainfast this morning, I blockchained up some scrambled blockchain with a side of fried blockchaing, and fresh-blockchained some blockchain juice so I would be sure to get my Vitamin B(lockchain). While I was blockchaining my blockchain, I read the Blockchain Post before hailing a blockchain for a ride to my downtown blockchain where we blockchained a meeting about the week's blockchain strategy and blockchained some references to blockchain into our corporate blockchain statement. Then off to blockchain for a three-blockchain lunch and a blockchained blockchain before heading to our blockchained client's blockchain to implement some blockchain in their blockchain.

    Whew! What a blockchain of a day. Happy to be home in my blockchain so I can pop open a blockchain and sit down to blockchain Game Of Blockchains on the blockchain, and maybe play a little first-person blockchain VR, or get online and duke it out in World Of Blockchains before I turn in for a good night's blockchain.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re: Blockchain! But, blockchained blockchain, too. by LordKronos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Funny, but that's literally what's going on...people are trying to find a way to wedge "blockchain" into everything. Things ive heard:

      Medical records. Like, really? You want your medical records shared publicly? Or do just want things like document integrity and version history (ie: the features that aren't unique to blockchain) without the group consensus part (ie: the only feature that blockchain brings to the table over previous ideas).

      Public records (marriage, property, etc). Really, who should be the authority here, if not the state/county/city? Trying to prevent them from altering records without your permission? How do you think they are going to do foreclosures and leins? Want to protect against unfiled documents on a title search? People can just as easily fail to properly record documents with blockchain. It offers much of nothing to the existing process.

      We're really just seeing a buch of blockchain-for-the-sake-of-blockchain ideas. Any insufficiencies in existing processes can be resolved through non-blockchain means. If those processes need to be reengineered for blockchain, they could just solve the issue with a smaller, less invasive update without blockchain.

    2. Re: Blockchain! But, blockchained blockchain, too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought blockhains didn't have to be public. They could be walled off private or government servers.

    3. Re: Blockchain! But, blockchained blockchain, too. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      Sure, but at that point what's the advantage over a traditional database that allows very computationally inexpensive inserts and updates? Buzzword-compliance?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    4. Re:Blockchain! But, blockchained blockchain, too. by Memnos · · Score: 1

      I've evergreened a patent for an AI that blockchains the virtual cloud in a quantum Docker container. I'm going to be the first trillionaire.

      --
      I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
    5. Re: Blockchain! But, blockchained blockchain, too. by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Don't underestimate the buzzword-compliance factor. It drives a large portion of the IT industry!

    6. Re: Blockchain! But, blockchained blockchain, too. by lordlod · · Score: 1

      A blockchain is a list of records which are resistant to modification. The current state is the accumulation of all the previous states, as such you can inspect the history to see each state alteration, this history cannot be modified without destroying the chain.

      With this in mind, the records you mentioned such as medical, marriage, and especially property could potentially benefit from the application of a blockchain.

      I own a property, I know this because there is an entry in the state database saying that I do. There is no deed or other formal evidence. If someone were to edit that database so that I never owned the property, things would be really awkward. An append only ledger would be a considerable improvement. The government seizing the property by adding the the chain is fine, as there is evidence of the transaction which can be disputed.

  6. Using the cloud for critical stuff is suicidal by gweihir · · Score: 4, Informative

    You just do not have enough control and you cannot make sure your core business survives an outage. In addition. it does not really save that much money, it often ends up costing significantly more. Sure, if you do your own infrastructure, you need some competent IT people to run it and make it work well, but maybe refrain from paying peanuts and your IT people will not be monkeys. In the end you do not only get a well-working in-house infrastructure, you get people that care about your company maintaining it and you actual get in-house expertise for all purchases. You just need to realize that IT is critical and that IT is much more important than any of your other functions. That is hard for the "business" side of things.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Using the cloud for critical stuff is suicidal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pay good people to administer your IT resources, whether it's in house or cloud. But building your own data center isn't cost effective for all but the biggest businesses.

    2. Re:Using the cloud for critical stuff is suicidal by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      As much as I hate sympathizing with the Blockchain!!! PR machine, the cloud is an environment where blockchain might actually make sense; you have (at least in theory) a very portable, yet verifiable “database” with distributed validation.

      I won’t pretend to understand why some information benefits from such a “database,” as a ledger isn’t really a database unto itself. I also won’t pretend to understand why some information wants to be “committed” by a third party, unless it can actually validate the data.

      But, IBM jumping “all-in” should be a sign that we are hitting peak-blockchain.

    3. Re:Using the cloud for critical stuff is suicidal by gweihir · · Score: 2

      You do not need to build your own data-center in order to have your own infrastructure. Co-location of your servers is entirely fine for smaller companies. It wills till be your servers, under your administration. And that is what counts.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Using the cloud for critical stuff is suicidal by gweihir · · Score: 1

      It is just bullshit hype. IBM wants a piece of that. For all real uses (except the increasingly discredited idea of crypto-"currencies"), standard revision-proof storage solves all the problems the blockchain solves and it does it better.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:Using the cloud for critical stuff is suicidal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are far more likely to survive an outage if you are relying on multiple availability zones in multiple regions (available in cloud providers) than if you put all your eggs in one colocation / data center. This is just as true with on-premises infrastructure as it is with any cloud provider. Relying only on one is limiting yourself unnecessarily, and is short-sighted; especially considering that "the cloud" only costs for what you actually use.

      Fire in your building? Some shithead janitor plug his floor waxer into the wrong circuit? Oops, better hope your offsite backups are good, and you have time to restore them all. Or you've spent a shitload of money on having everything running in a hot spare datacenter that you aren't getting any value from other than as an insurance policy unless you are using some kind of complex load balancing with some form of long-distance active / active database replication that is also checking for replica drift.

      If you do things properly in "the cloud" you can be running again in minutes from a massive disaster scenario. For example, with AWS, you could have your databases snapshotting regularly and copying those snapshots cross-region automatically; all you'd have to do is restore the snap to a new instance in a different region, and your data is back. Then, because you are using CloudFormation and some automatic provisioning system like Chef or Ansible, you can spin up your server stacks in ten minutes, change your DNS to point to your new load balancers, and you're back online. Or, if you're really trendy you could just have your server apps in Docker containers running on EC2 container service (or on AWS Lambda / API gateway), in which you just start new containers in a different region and update DNS and you're back in a few minutes as long as you have any kind of proper monitoring whatsoever.

      If you are on-premises, and your premises burns down / has an extended power or data outage, and you don't have a backup copy of your infrastructure with fairly equal connectivity, you're not necessarily fucked, but you're also not all good. You and a team of peers will have a shitload of work to do, with managers asking for hourly meetings on the status, because that's what managers do.

      Probably the best mix of both philosophies is to have some on-prem infrastructure which has a DR / business continuity plan of encrypted backups and fast spin-up plans in "the cloud", as well as non-critical and customer-facing systems "in the cloud" with it's DR / business continuity objectives fulfilled on-prem. That way, Amazon would have to lose multiple regions AND you'd have to lose your own facility to be completely fucked.

    6. Re: Using the cloud for critical stuff is suicidal by LordKronos · · Score: 2

      As much as I hate sympathizing with the Blockchain!!! PR machine, the cloud is an environment where blockchain might actually make sense; you have (at least in theory) a very portable, yet verifiable âoedatabaseâ with distributed validation.

      But blockchain's value isn't just in distributed storage, validation, or anything like that. Its value is how difficult it is to tamper. Why is it difficult? Because to tamper with it, you need to control the majority of it, which requires a massive investment in computational power. This works for bitcoin, because there is a broad community interest (including monetary incentive) to participate, which means to control it you'd have to invest many billions of dollars in hardware and electricity to take control. But for a private company, how much money are they going to invest to maintain this continual busywork network to secure their data? Any hacker with a botnet will easily be able to rewrite the chain however they desire. So unless they can convince the public to invest massive public resources to secure the private corporate data, the only new feature of blockchain vanishes instantly. You are better off just having a very well locked down signing server to serve as a notary for all transactions, or something like that depending on which feature you ACTUALLY want.

    7. Re:Using the cloud for critical stuff is suicidal by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about _one_ colocation place? And you seem to completely miss that you get all the outages of the cloud-provider for free, but with nothing you can do about them.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    8. Re:Using the cloud for critical stuff is suicidal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming you trust the owner of the 'standard revision proof storage' - that's neither standard nor revision proof.

      But don't let that get in the way of your ever-so edgy contrarianism.

    9. Re: Using the cloud for critical stuff is suicidal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You just need to realize that IT is critical and that IT is much more important than any of your other functions."

      That is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Honestly. Just staggeringly, breathtakingly stupid.

  7. Satoshi Nakamoto ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... filed a patent for blockchain.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  8. Digital Ledger. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Blockchain" is nothing more than a digital ledger with a checksum.

    Nothing about using blockchain requires you to use the public ledgers (Like Bitcoin). You can control the entire ledger if you want.

    1. Re:Digital Ledger. by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Yup. It's clear that most of the CEOs interviewed in the linked article have no clue what it is. But the buzzword is hot this season so they have to be all in on it, whatever it is.

    2. Re:Digital Ledger. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Blockchain" is nothing more than a digital ledger with a checksum.

      And Oracle is nothing more than a database. But they sure do sell a few metric fucktons of product a year.

      Nothing about using blockchain requires you to use the public ledgers (Like Bitcoin). You can control the entire ledger if you want.

      I'm still struggling to find the value of a checksum-protected ledger. Seems to me this would make it harder for companies to "massage the numbers", which has been an unethical-but-accepted practice for a very long time now.

    3. Re:Digital Ledger. by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Massaging the numbers isn’t exactly an ethics thing; it is that there are different ways to interpret the same thing, and an accounting clerk (or even controlled) might not have all the information that the tax lawyer or tax accountant does. Much of it is not black and white.

      Simple example— if you buy software on a subscription, that is treated differently than a traditional perpetual license. A 12-month subscription paid in August could be treated differently than a license purchased in April. Meals associated with a billable project may be 50% or 100% deductible. Many things are t black or white, so you might massage the parts to make the whole reflect the true condition.

    4. Re:Digital Ledger. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Blockchain" is nothing more than a digital ledger with a checksum.

      No. A blockchain is a DISTRIBUTED digital ledger with a hash (not a checksum).

      The "distributed" part is what is important, since it means that no one party can corrupt it.

      The fact that it is hashed, rather than merely checksumed, also means it is very difficult to corrupt.

    5. Re:Digital Ledger. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2

      The "distributed" part is what is important, since it means that no one party can corrupt it.

      That is how the current systems are setup.

      It doesn't mean that Walmart can't setup an internal only "blockchain" that only runs on their intranet to track store balances.

    6. Re:Digital Ledger. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You make it sound so fancy. It's a list. Like those lists they have in public toilets saying when it was cleaned. Except instead of signing your name on the list you sign it with "crypto", which is really just a math equation geeks used to get printed on t-shirts in the 90s as a way of saying fuck you to the US government.

    7. Re:Digital Ledger. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Would you use a blockchain system when you needed to speed up transaction times? That's one of the claims of the article, and from everything I see, blockchain - BY DESIGN - gets slower and slower as more transactions are put into the chain.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    8. Re:Digital Ledger. by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      And what use would that be for Walmart? The distributed part of the blockchain is it's entire benefit (so that it's hard for a single entity to manipulate it).

    9. Re:Digital Ledger. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Would you use a blockchain system when you needed to speed up transaction times?

      It depends on the "transaction". If you are trying to clear multi-party escrowed transactions, such as securities, bonds, or real-estate transactions, those can currently take days to clear and be recorded. A blockchain based system could reduce that to minutes, and possibly even seconds.

    10. Re:Digital Ledger. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is still useless if the initial transfer is compromised, before the journal is written.
      Be it known that several bitcoin exchanges have paid RANSOM money on many occasions, and in this boom, who would volunteer that? Illegal or not, that's what they did.
      Presently banks are withholding transfers, to ensure they do not wear the loss/sting if the exchanges collapse. Now it looks like, and walks like a check, or a duck?

      I doubt if anyone has looked at what if - how ledger entries can be reversed, and distributed LATENCY attacks. Hacking exchanges via the Microsoft Management engine interface just got 1000 times more attractive, and that could include firewalls and routers. Plus the IRS and tax agencies will be wanting a piece of the action.

    11. Re:Digital Ledger. by swillden · · Score: 1

      The "distributed" part is what is important, since it means that no one party can corrupt it.

      That is how the current systems are setup.

      It doesn't mean that Walmart can't setup an internal only "blockchain" that only runs on their intranet to track store balances.

      Sure they can, but what value does it provide? A blockchain is more complicated and less efficient than a central database. If the concern is about having a single point of failure blockchains enable distributed consensus, but it's hard to see how that provides any value over a replicated database. It's hard for a well-placed employee to rewrite history with a blockchain, but that's also achievable with existing database technology, and in any case I don't see any evidence that it's a serious problem.

      No, I see no value in a purely internal blockchain. There may be some value in using blockchains to establish distributed ledgers with partners (e.g. suppliers). Invoices, shipment records, receipt records, etc. could be stored in a blockchain so both parties are using a single distributed ledger rather than each maintaining its own database. Given that these sorts of processes are already thoroughly automated, though, it's not clear that a blockchain-based shared ledger would be that much better. My guess is that's the angle they're looking at, though, since it's the only thing that makes any sort of sense at all.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    12. Re:Digital Ledger. by swillden · · Score: 1

      Would you use a blockchain system when you needed to speed up transaction times? That's one of the claims of the article, and from everything I see, blockchain - BY DESIGN - gets slower and slower as more transactions are put into the chain.

      Blockchains don't get slower as more transactions are added. What makes you think that? They don't necessarily even consume ever-growing amounts of storage, since it's always possible to agree to add some new records at the head summarizing information in the tail prior to some agreed-upon point in time, and then discard everything before that cutoff.

      I'm sure you get this idea from bitcoin, but it's not accurate even for bitcoin. Bitcoin hasn't gotten slower on a per-transaction basis, it's gotten a little faster, and would be dramatically faster if it weren't for the changes made to intentionally slow down mining (note that mining is not an inherent feature of blockchains, though it makes sense for public blockchains). No, the problem with bitcoin transaction performance is that the transaction volume has increased beyond the design capacity. Transaction throughput is higher than ever, but transaction latency is through the roof because transaction demand is higher than throughput.

      With that said, I really don't see how blockchains are going to help much, given that supply chains are already thoroughly automated. Right now, each party maintains a separate database and they exchange electronic documents for orders, invoices, etc. With blockchain they can create a shared ledger, but this seems like a minor win at best.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    13. Re:Digital Ledger. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      No, I see no value in a purely internal blockchain.

      Agreed. It was just the farthest example I could think of from "Everything is public".

      I can see a Walmart blockchain where they control 51% of the 'nodes' and force all suppliers to use it (and the have the clout to make it happen).

    14. Re:Digital Ledger. by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      > transaction volume has increased beyond the design capacity.

      Not if the designed features (SegWit, and Schnorr Signatures) were in use by everyone on the network.

      But hey, we are still mostly on IPv4, there is a lot of inertia to overcome.

    15. Re:Digital Ledger. by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      I can see a Walmart blockchain where they control 51% of the 'nodes'

      They don't need that. All they need is a single server which signs all the blocks with a secret private key. Everybody with access can verify the data, but nobody else can modify it.

    16. Re:Digital Ledger. by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      The distributed part of the blockchain is it's entire benefit (so that it's hard for a single entity to manipulate it).

      The distributed nature is accidentally related to the difficulty in manipulating it.

    17. Re:Digital Ledger. by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Not accidentally, it's the only thing that makes it difficult (and verifiable).

    18. Re:Digital Ledger. by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      The fact that it is hashed, rather than merely checksumed, also means it is very difficult to corrupt.

      Until the hash is broken, and the entire house of cards comes crumbling down.

    19. Re:Digital Ledger. by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      I can make a clone of bitcoin, and invite a bunch of people around the world to start mining it with 100000 distributed raspberry Pis, and it would not be difficult to manipulate.

      I can make another clone, and have 1 miner with 10 million ASICs, and it would be much harder to manipulate.

    20. Re:Digital Ledger. by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      of course, but then you can create a private blockchain which is what TFA talks about that is not distributed and not public and then you don't need any ASICs or rapberrys in order to manipulate it at all. That is the difference. In order to reap the benefits of a blockchain you must have a large community, something that you don't have with a private blockchain.

    21. Re:Digital Ledger. by swillden · · Score: 1

      I can see a Walmart blockchain where they control 51% of the 'nodes'

      They don't need that. All they need is a single server which signs all the blocks with a secret private key. Everybody with access can verify the data, but nobody else can modify it.

      And each supplier could sign its own records in the chain with its private key. That would ensure that Wal-mart couldn't forge records from suppliers, and the hash chain would ensure that no one could rewrite history by removing or reordering records. It makes sense. What's not clear to me is that it's actually enough of an improvement to be worth the effort of retooling all of the existing automated systems.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    22. Re:Digital Ledger. by swillden · · Score: 1

      > transaction volume has increased beyond the design capacity.

      Not if the re-designed features (SegWit, and Schnorr Signatures) were in use by everyone on the network.

      FTFY.

      The original design simply cannot scale. The proposed modifications would help, some. I think it's very unlikely that anything short of a complete redesign and restructuring could make it practical as a significant global currency.

      But hey, we are still mostly on IPv4, there is a lot of inertia to overcome.

      Yep, changing is very, very hard.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    23. Re:Digital Ledger. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is right - a "private blockchain" is pretty much a waste of time. When you are the authority for transactions, you don't need to verify someone else's.

  9. Complete bullshit by matthollingsworth · · Score: 1

    Digital signatures and distributed databases have existed for decades contrary to the attribution by many of those to blockchain. My customers have had reliable inexpensive low-latency systems for decades that are far superior to anything that blockchain provides or could hope to provide in the future. Digital signatures and hashing are ubiquitous and widely used too. Blockchain is all hype. I've worked at Microsoft for decades and currently work with large companies in Southern California and Hawaii. The only customer I know looking at blockchain was a drug company and they were just doing it in a group that tests new technologies to examine benefits, not because benefits were being realized by adopting it currently. Blockchain and specifically Bitcoin has advantages for illegal activities though - facilitating illicit transactions for gun running, hit men, child prostitution, drugs etc. It's a great way to undermine countries with capital controls. It is probably useful for intelligence organizations to hide their activities and evade oversight. It's probably good for evading taxes and money laundering too. It's a great way to increase entropy in the universe for the lowest cost as miners compete. It provides more drama and headlines for news organizations who refuse to generate real news content. Oh, and as all can see it's the most friction-free global bubble making apparatus conceived since derivitives and the trusts in the 1920's.

    1. Re:Complete bullshit by BabyAndTheButterfly · · Score: 1

      You don't understand what a blockchain is because you don't understand the meaning of decentralised consensus. This is not some dumb database replication. It has great advantages and use cases but most of the time a centralised solution should probably be preferable - ok, but that doesn't diminish the greatness of the invention.

    2. Re:Complete bullshit by matthollingsworth · · Score: 1

      there have always been algorithms for decentralized consensus. What's new and useful about this in terms of new capabilities not already well covered by solutions?

    3. Re:Complete bullshit by BabyAndTheButterfly · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... The first very early solution is from 1999. Refer to the Byzantine Generals' Problem. What applications does this thing brings except Bitcoin as money (which is a huge thing in itself) we will start to see I think in late 2018 after all those ICO blockchain companies start to release products and also Ethereum network scales to be actually useable for all those apps.

  10. Guessing this is mostly Bitcoin hype by JMZero · · Score: 1

    I think a lot of people are curious about blockchain technology because Bitcoin has been in the news - people don't want to miss out on the new thing in technology. It's natural that IBM and Oracle are going to use a wedge like that to try to get in the door with people, but I don't think that many businesses are going to have problems where blockchain tech is an important part of the solution.

    --
    Let's not stir that bag of worms...
  11. Here we go again by bobm · · Score: 2

    Everyone is seeing how bitcoin has this great big distributed network and (in my experience) the people thinking we will us the same blockchain distribution haven't figured out that it's not going to be free to have multiple hosts for the chain.

    link to another discussion: https://www.quora.com/In-a-pri...

    I for one can't wait for Oracle to enter this market. (disclaimer - I hate Oracle).

  12. No one was ever fired for choosing IBM by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    What goes around comes around. Sometimes the old ways of doing something become useful again.

  13. Responsive cloud chains as a service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blockchain is legacy technology. Responsive cloud chains are the future. Only backwards leaning corporations should deploy blockchain in 2018.

    Stay tuned for next week when we provide powerful new insights into the booming bloom filter market.

  14. Check out the OTC/Penny Stocks by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    Companies are making announcements and forward looking statements about blockchains and cryptocurrency. This is a pump and dump wet dream.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  15. future: IT jobs going down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MBA's whole life is to simplify jobs as much as possible and EXTERNALIZES costs (risk is a cost) producing results for the short term. If they screw up, it's not their job that goes 1st; besides, they can work anywhere after a soft landing from their golden parachute... not that they won't save their own asses blaming others... externalizing risk as long as possible.

    IT is a cost not an asset; even so, their mentality is to sell of assets for short term gain.

    Outsource EVERYTHING to externalize the risks and costs involved; let the contractors fight over the scraps and profitability. If something goes wrong, it's not your fault... Use whatever buzzwords to justify every step in the same evil direction.

    You may be a valuable IT asset-- but you are replaceable with consultant cogs which are easier to replace and provide a firewall of accountability that you do not. Complexity of work may keep your job around until the MBAs can split your work into simpler jobs... such as AI augmented jobs... where they can hire a 3rd party consulting service to replace you with a dozen cheap script kiddies with no actual clue of what they are doing.

  16. It's a perfect match for IBM and Big IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More consulting services, more CPUs, more storage.

    Lots of consulting work to shove blockchain into everything, particularly in areas it provides no benefit.
    Lots of CPU/GPU consumption for creating and working with the blockchain.
    Extra space to store the blockchain.

    And the best part? 99.9+% will provide utterly no return for the customer, so the customer's problems will remain, which means money still has to be spent fixing them, thus the next buzzword phase can follow right after... It's Big-Money Consulting's fantasy come true!

  17. Anyone have a good layman's explaination by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    of why everybody's so crazy about it? Is it really just companies hoping to offload their server farms to a distributed database ala bit-torrent?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Anyone have a good layman's explaination by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just wrote one up above. Here you go:

      https://developers.slashdot.or...

      Oh, and you want to have a lot of copies of the list, because your scuzzy roommates like to use whiteout a lot. If you've got more copies than they can get to, you can compare and catch them.

  18. Re:Smurf! But, smurfed smurf, too. by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    For my smurffast this morning, I smurfed up some scrambled smurf with a side of fried smurfg, and fresh-smurfed some smurf juice so I would be sure to get my Vitamin B(lockchain). While I was smurfing my smurf, I read the smurf Post before hailing a smurf for a ride to my downtown smurf where we smurfed a meeting about the week's smurf strategy and smurfed some references to smurf into our corporate smurf statement. Then off to smurf for a three-smurf lunch and a smurfed smurf before heading to our smurfed client's smurf to implement some smurf in their smurf. Whew! What a smurf of a day. Happy to be home in my smurf so I can pop open a smurf and sit down to smurf Game Of smurfs on the smurf, and maybe play a little first-person smurf VR, or get online and duke it out in World Of smurfs before I turn in for a good night's smurf.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  19. Estonia runs on blockchain by ToughRat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And the rest of the world is far behind: https://www.newyorker.com/maga...

    1. Re:Estonia runs on blockchain by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Well great for Guardtime to scam an entire country into using their unnecessarily resource intensive technology I guess.

  20. Marketing buz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a secure way to validate ledger entries. The craze is just that, a craze that will pass.

  21. Oh joy! by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

    The 3 greatest tech companies are leading the way! The future will soon be here!

    Note to self: Blockchain may not be as important as many people think given who is leading the way with it.

  22. Re: Using the cloud for critical stuff is suicida by LordKronos · · Score: 1

    By the way....WTF happened to the quotes around the word database? They weren't in his post, and I simply copy/pasted it into my quote tags. I am NOT using an apple device (oneplus one, lineage os, chrome browser). How did they get converted from normal ASCII quotes to Unicode? Is this something new in chrome? Some setting in lineage? I haven't see that before.

  23. Old Technology by PPH · · Score: 2

    There have been some lending companies in New Jersey using blockchain for decades. Every once in a while, the chain slips off of a lender in arrears and the body pops up up in the East Channel.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  24. No matter what new technology, we can trust IBM... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

    ... and Oracle to make it burdensome and difficult.

  25. this has to be a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are people really this naïve?

    1. Re: this has to be a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup.

      Look who they voted for President.

      (Fuck IBM.)

  26. Oblig. Courage Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IBM just out-couraged Apple.

    I guess the tables have turned since 1984. IBM is now the lean, mean, agile innovator and Apple the stodgy, mega-corp that consumers are falling out of love with.

  27. Missed alliteration opportunity in the title. by CaptSlaq · · Score: 1

    "Blockchain Brings Business Boom To Big Blue, Big Bad, and Big Brother"

    1. Re:Missed alliteration opportunity in the title. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I didn't see FaceBook on the list of companies at all.

      Prior art for IBM aside, I think it's a better company for any of those nicknames.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  28. DIY Cryptocurrency Mining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want to get in on the cryptocurrency mining scene, you need a good motherboard that allows for multiple GPUs: ASRock H110 Pro BTC+, ASUS B250, Biostar TB350-BTC, and GIGABYTE GA-H110-D3A.