Are there any closed source block chains?
There are proprietary ones.
Intel releases open source blockchain
11–20 of 30 posts
Re: Intel releases open source blockchain
#12I personally love the idea of using a blockchain to send anonymous, encrypted messages.
I tried out BitMessage I think it was, a while back; I think a stripped-down lightweight version of it would be very useful.
Maybe with a Web browser doing encryption, decryption in-browser (already Tutanota etc. do this). Not sure as to the the other pieces that would need to be deployed.
Re: Intel releases open source blockchain
#13Are there any closed source block chains?
Guardtime?
Re: Intel releases open source blockchain
#14Here's the interesting part over existing blockchains / the reason why Intel is involved, from http://intelledger.github.io/introduction.html :
"This project includes a consensus algorithm, PoET (Proof of Elapsed Time), which is intended to run in a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE), such as Intel® Software Guard Extensions (SGX)."
Re: Intel releases open source blockchain
#15I'm not well versed on developments in blockchain tech. Could someone here help explain whether this is good news and which specific problems, if any, would this technology help solve. For example, could this be applied to provide secure online voting systems? I like that proof of work protocols are inherently safe as long as majority computing power is 'good'. Could such decentralized security technologies replace the currently centralized ones completely, for example, certificate authorities? Please pardon my ignorance, I'm eager to learn.
Re: Intel releases open source blockchain
#16I personally love the idea of using a blockchain to send anonymous, encrypted messages. I tried out BitMessage I think it was, a while back; I think a stripped-down lightweight version of it would be very useful. Maybe with a Web browser doing encryption, decryption in-browser (already Tutanota etc. do this). Not sure as to the the other pieces that would need to be deployed.
BitMessage is not secure (query BitMessage security on Google)
If you are interested, you can use OpenPGP with ECC ( and the JS implementation https://github.com/Jaxx-io/openpgpjs-secp256k1 )
Take into account that you need to use different keys for signing and encryption and the BIP 44 can be useful for this purpose.
Re: Intel releases open source blockchain
#17I personally love the idea of using a blockchain to send anonymous, encrypted messages. I tried out BitMessage I think it was, a while back; I think a stripped-down lightweight version of it would be very useful. Maybe with a Web browser doing encryption, decryption in-browser (already Tutanota etc. do this). Not sure as to the the other pieces that would need to be deployed.
I don't think BitMessage is a blockchain is it? It doesn't create or use a shared ledger or consensus for that ledger, it just sends all messages to everyone so that the sender and receiver are much more difficult to track down.
Re: Intel releases open source blockchain
#18Anyone who has been following blockchain technology for more than 6 months can see that this is the same recycled already-done altcoin as the last guy. The promoters get larger, and the consortiums get larger. People need to talk about the WHY and HOW their blockchain works better. How it solves problems better than an existing blockchain. This isn't detailed because you already know the answer: "It doesn't, but I co…
The introduction in the actual code actually explains it. It's not yet another rebadged Bitcoin Core codebase.
http://intelledger.github.io/introduction.html
The security model is totally different than Bitcoin - it's based on trusted nodes, leading to much different tradeoffs.
Re: Intel releases open source blockchain
#19Anyone who has been following blockchain technology for more than 6 months can see that this is the same recycled already-done altcoin as the last guy. The promoters get larger, and the consortiums get larger. People need to talk about the WHY and HOW their blockchain works better. How it solves problems better than an existing blockchain. This isn't detailed because you already know the answer: "It doesn't, but I co…
The introduction in the actual code actually explains it. It's not yet another rebadged Bitcoin Core codebase. http://intelledger.github.io/introduction.html The security model is totally different than Bitcoin - it's based on trusted nodes, leading to much different tradeoffs.
> The security model is totally different than Bitcoin - it's based on trusted nodes, leading to much different tradeoffs.
Tradeoffs such as?
I read that and it is hard to conceptualize the pros and cons. Sometimes I think about why blockchains weren't considered as a solution to the byzantine generals problem before 2008. Was it fucking stupid? Was the consensus idea improperly dismissed? Never considered? I would say from 2000 - 2008 internet latency was 'good enough' in some places for this. Maybe 2004 - 2008 the storage space improvements were also good enough.
Sometimes I really wonder.
Re: Intel releases open source blockchain
#20Here's the interesting part over existing blockchains / the reason why Intel is involved, from http://intelledger.github.io/introduction.html : "This project includes a consensus algorithm, PoET (Proof of Elapsed Time), which is intended to run in a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE), such as Intel® Software Guard Extensions (SGX)."
Yes, I think that's the most interesting part of the Intel proposal. Rather than using lots of energy to compute a gazillion hashes (the work in Proof of Work), they rely on special processors to prove that they've waited for some amount of time (Proof of Elapsed Time). (The time is a random variable with known distribution.) That takes way less energy (cost). It's clever.
It got me thinking of other ways for computers to prove that a certain amount of time has passed, and I came up with this idea that takes advantage of the finite speed of light: