GET CALL FROM
BLOCKCHAIN SEMANTICS
COUNSELOR
×

Blockchain Semantics Insights


Business Case |  Deep Tech |  Announcements |  Blockchain Glossary | 
Blockchain Semantics Blog Shouldn’t there be only one Blockchain?

Shouldn’t there be only one Blockchain?

By Swati Keswani | April 6, 2018, 7:59 a.m. GMT

After understanding all three different types of Blockchain, now comes the big question- why do we need all of them?

Blockchain gained all the limelight because of its key characteristics like decentralization, immutability, and security. But the concepts of private and consortium Blockchain networks have overruled some of its characteristics. For example, private and consortium networks take away the essence of Blockchain by bringing in a central authority. This makes these networks very similar to the existing platforms.

Consortium and private networks take a few pages from the public Blockchain network. It implements cryptography and security making the centralized systems secure.

As we have discussed in our earlier posts, here are some of the benefits of having a private or consortium networks:-

  1. No need to rely on huge servers.
  2. They are fast and cost-effective.
  3. Reduction in the need for more trusted parties, smart contracts are enough to replace them.
  4. Options for rights and access management.
  5. Decreases redundant work.
  6. Fast distributed consensus between interested parties, even though you are geographically segregated.

Private & Consortium Blockchain networks is definitely a better solution as compared to the existing centralized solutions. It is a good fit where the privacy of data is a must. Not everything in the world can and should be made public.

And that’s why different people discuss different use cases of the Blockchain technology across various industries. Now, should private and consortium networks be called “Blockchain”? We like to call it “Cryptographic Centralized Networks”.

If you liked the post, give it a   0
Apply for Blockchain Jobs

Course 1

Introduction to
Blockchain and Bitcoin

Course 2

Developing Decentralized
Applications on Ethereum
Using Solidity

Course 3

Investing In Bitcoin
and Cryptocurrencies

Comments


Devraj Singh Rawat | Aug. 24, 2018, 1:42 a.m. GMT

Indeed they should be called block chain as underlying they are working in similar fashion i.e. having an immutable shared ledger, records are appended only after consensus among nodes. But the only difference is being decentralized. We should call them Centralized block chain solutions like Ripple

Devraj Singh Rawat | Aug. 24, 2018, 1:42 a.m. GMT

Indeed they should be called block chain as underlying they are working in similar fashion i.e. having an immutable shared ledger, records are appended only after consensus among nodes. But the only difference is being decentralized. We should call them Centralized block chain solutions like Ripple