• VR20X6@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 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, signatures, verification procedures, distributed storage. It’s not very sophisticated, but you are definitely on the path to reinventing the blockchain.

      Who gets to add the next record? How about the party that is doing that step of processing in the supply chain.

      Oh, so you want a new database for every item. Let’s have one database handling lots of items and validated in sequence.

      And I have a great idea for protecting the keys. It’s called asymmetric key pairs.

      Brilliant. And how is your invention different from a private permissioned blockchain?

      • VR20X6@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 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.