Blockchain Semantics Insights
Business Case | Deep Tech | Announcements | Blockchain Glossary |
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.
As we have discussed in our earlier posts, here are some of the benefits of having a private or consortium networks:-
- No need to rely on huge servers.
- They are fast and cost-effective.
- Reduction in the need for more trusted parties, smart contracts are enough to replace them.
- Options for rights and access management.
- Decreases redundant work.
- 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”.