Is Blockchain a new technology or just a method of data storing?

[Weecoinofficial]

Is Blockchain a new technology or just a method of data storing?

[Theb]

It is both, Blockchain as a new technology that has created a new way on how to store data permanently in a decentralized way that cannot be falsified and can be monitored by other people. Compared to the traditional method where databases can be changed by clients with permissions Blockchain cannot be altered and what you have inputted is an irreversible data. Another proof that Blockchain is a "new technology" is how the governments' patent offices issues patents to companies with their own proposed version of Blockchain, which you cannot have if what you are trying to patent is not unique in their eyes.

[aliashraf]

I think cryptocurrency is a technology and blockchain is a simple data structure unlike what some people say. None of bitcoin important features such as decentralization or immutability is achievable without Proof of Work and block reward. Claiming blockchain as a new technology is PR made sales discourse and worthless. In IT business/tech we have a lot of such PR made terms that are used to fool customers especially 3rd world governments who are willingly ready to buy vanity software and blame themselves for not being able to use it.

[AGD]

Blockchain is just a word. It means nothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_chain
http://www.hashcash.org/hashcash.pdf

from Satoshis white paper https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures.  Each owner transfers the coin to the
next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner
and adding these to the end of the coin.  A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of
ownership.
...
To  accomplish   this   without   a   trusted   party,   transactions   must   be
publicly announced [1], and we need a system for participants to agree on a single history of the
order in which they were received.  The payee needs proof that at the time of each transaction, the
majority of nodes agreed it was the first received.
...
The solution we propose begins with a timestamp server.  A timestamp server works by taking a
hash   of   a   block   of   items   to   be   timestamped   and   widely   publishing   the   hash,   such   as   in   a
newspaper or Usenet post [2-5].   The timestamp proves that the data must have existed at the
time, obviously, in order to get into the hash.  Each timestamp includes the previous timestamp in
its hash, forming a chain, with each additional timestamp reinforcing the ones before it.
...
To implement a distributed timestamp server on a peer-to-peer basis, we will need to use a proof-
of-work system  similar to Adam  Back's  Hashcash  [6],  rather than  newspaper  or  Usenet  posts.
The proof-of-work involves scanning for a value that when hashed, such as with SHA-256, the
hash begins with a number of zero bits.  The average work required is exponential in the number
of zero bits required and can be verified by executing a single hash.
For our timestamp network, we implement the proof-of-work by incrementing a nonce in the
block until a value is found that gives the block's hash the required zero bits.   Once the CPU
effort   has   been   expended   to   make   it   satisfy   the   proof-of-work,   the   block   cannot   be   changed
without  redoing  the   work.    As   later   blocks   are  chained   after  it,   the  work  to  change  the  block
would include redoing all the blocks after it.

To call this a 'blockchain' is pretty obvious in the end. The big thing is the combination of technologies, that Satoshi used to solve a problem. The 'blockchain' is just one part of the invention, which people nowadays use for any money database, no matter if public or not.

[HeRetiK]

A blockchain in itself is just a data format and without a proper consensus algorithm it's worth next to nil.

The innovation that Bitcoin introduced came from combining the data structure we now call blockchain while using proof of work as centerpiece of a consensus algorithm. Each piece by itself was nothing new, albeit rarely used, but combined it enabled permissionless and secure monetary transactions without the need for a central entity or federated trust -- a solution to a problem previously unsolved.

In short: Cryptocurrencies are a new technology, but blockchains alone, while also new(ish), are little more than a cumbersome way to store data.

[Weecoinofficial]

A blockchain in itself is just a data format and without a proper consensus algorithm it's worth next to nil.

The innovation that Bitcoin introduced came from combining the data structure we now call blockchain while using proof of work as centerpiece of a consensus algorithm. Each piece by itself was nothing new, albeit rarely used, but combined it enabled permissionless and secure monetary transactions without the need for a central entity or federated trust -- a solution to a problem previously unsolved.

In short: Cryptocurrencies are a new technology, but blockchains alone, while also new(ish), are little more than a cumbersome way to store data.

If you say blockchain is a data storing structure, do you agree it is one the worst database produced ever? No records, no specific retrieving format, etc. Everything is stored as transactions with a huge amount of redundancy.

[HeRetiK]

If you say blockchain is a data storing structure, do you agree it is one the worst database produced ever? No records, no specific retrieving format, etc. Everything is stored as transactions with a huge amount of redundancy.

No, that award goes to MongoDB.

On a more serious note, in my opinion you can't really classify blockchains as a kind of database. There's some overlap between use cases for blockchains (as a data structure) and databases, just like there's some overlap between use cases for Word and Excel. But in general those are entirely different things.

Obviously you can use a blockchain as a database, but whether you should is a different question. It is also worth noting that there's a lot of different blockchains out there just like there are a lot of different databases out there, so this might be a bit of an overgeneralization.

As an aside, be aware that there are different kinds of redundancies. You can have (a) redundant data within a database and you can have (b) redundant copies of a database. If done badly or applied wrongly (a) can introduce you to a world of pain. The redundancy that is usually ascribed to blockchains however is usually of type (b), which is something most people want when storing their data and is the kind of redundancy you get when creating a backup or setting up a load balancer.

But to reiterate -- I don't think a blockchain can be meaningfully evualuated in isolation without taking consensus into account. Looking at blockchains in isolation and then wondering why one would use such a data structure is like surgically removing someones brain to analyze their conscious being and then wondering why all you get is a dead piece of meat. I absolutely understand your skepticism however, since a lot of companies that jumped on the hypetrain seem to do just that -- they take a dead piece of meat, smear a bit of lipstick on it and call it a person.

[aliashraf]

A blockchain is a special data structure for persistency of chronological history of states and events for a finite state machine evolving in time. The most important feature of a blockchain is its ability to encode the machine it represents by just one data element: hash of the last block. Given we are using a strong enough hash function, we could be practically convinced for identity of two blockchains with exactly the same hash for their latest blocks.

Bitcoin, its clones and a majority of other cryptocurrencies, use this feature for implementing their consensus algorithm by enabling participants to 'refer' to their versions of blockchain and reconcile them while exchanging the minimum information ever.

Beyond reconciliation of states and other important use cases in cryptocurrency, one could hardly find a considerable application for blockchains with the exception of its resistance to accidental/intentional manipulation of persistent data once it is complemented with additional measure.

Given a data intensive application other than cryptocurrency that is highly sensitive to alteration of data, blockchain is one choice for its persistency module, in this case, one can use indexing techniques to help with inherent inefficiencies in blockchain. Thethe  problem would be finding/redefining such a use case and perhaps building an entire technology for handling it, I suppose.

[Cloudy]

And what is a perspective of blockchain as a data storage ,method???

[paxmao]

Rather than a technology, I would simply say that is an innovative method. Databases already existed, replication already existed, transactions already existed, node discovery existed, decentralized apps already existed,...

The innovation is putting all that together, adding PoW and making it work.

Just an example: Before the railway was invented, all the technologies like the steam engine, metallurgy, control... the mere wheel... it all existed, but putting it together is much more than the sum of the parts.

[r1s2g3]

If you say blockchain is a data storing structure, do you agree it is one the worst database produced ever?

Your comment is very much analogous to "like judging the fish for its ability to climb a tree"
Block chain is not created for storing the data though it store transaction data.

Before Satoshi , people already proposed  electronic currency/Crypto currency. Even Satoshi was not the first to tell us about PoW consensus.
Everything was there and only problem is that we did not have any decentralized method that can work for distributed system (byzantine fault tolerance).
Block chain solved that problem.

It will be helpful if you read the below post and references mentioned there.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5066766

I will suggest you to understand CAP theorem and byzantine fault tolerance and you will get the answer to your current question.

[hatshepsut93]

Is Blockchain a new technology or just a method of data storing?

Blockchain isn't about how you store data, it's about communication with other parties that have the same data in order to keep everything in sync. "blockchain technology" is an attempt to mimic cryptocurrency protocol for other purposes, but people who do it almost always ignore the vital parts of cryptocurrencies like mining, so they end up with a very weak and vulnerable systems.

[ololajulo]

Is Blockchain a new technology or just a method of data storing?

We all know blockchain was the reason why major of the banking sector are appreciating and supporting crypto currency because it can use in diverse way and it always guarantee users security which the banks, the governments and the senior regulators failed to provide. However, saying blockchain is just a method of data storage is like saying US are the country that have national currency because we all have seen alot of project with different perspective on here.

If fiat does not exist in banking sector again then the online transaction is similar to blockchain. It is just exploit to data storage in blockchain and the level of security or privacy depend on the type of blockchain. At the time bitcoin started blockchain was just adopted but was not new

[shield132]

It was already explained what blockchain technologies are, they are great for storing data which has additional layer of protection and for tracking things, overally this is great technology which rapidly gets implemented in a lot services, even governments try to implement it.
I can suggest you great thing, if you like reading, go on this website and read latest news on blockchain, you'll understand how it works, what kind of companies implement it and why they do this, here is the link: https://cointelegraph.com/tags/blockchain

[qwk]

Is Blockchain a new technology or just a method of data storing?

Technichally, it's not just a method of data storage.
It's a method to publicly and transparently store signed serialized data with a relative timestamp.
That's way more than just data storage and the reason why it is considered such an enormous technological breakthrough.

Is it "new technology"? Well, the automobile wasn't "new technology" in its own right but rather the application of certain technological progress to accomplish certain means. The same holds true for Bitcoin.

[btc-room101]

If you say blockchain is a data storing structure, do you agree it is one the worst database produced ever?

Your comment is very much analogous to "like judging the fish for its ability to climb a tree"
Block chain is not created for storing the data though it store transaction data.

Before Satoshi , people already proposed  electronic currency/Crypto currency. Even Satoshi was not the first to tell us about PoW consensus.
Everything was there and only problem is that we did not have any decentralized method that can work for distributed system (byzantine fault tolerance).
Block chain solved that problem.

It will be helpful if you read the below post and references mentioned there.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5066766

I will suggest you to understand CAP theorem and byzantine fault tolerance and you will get the answer to your current question.

Most will agree that Satoshi was not a very good programmer, he's clearly a math guy, that wrote code,

In terms of 'tech' nothing about btc is novel in the world of computer-sci, that means there is no nobel awards coming for satoshi@nsa,

Most of this stuff is right-time, at the right-place, many a people had tried to launch and digital-cash, this was the first that stuck to the wall,

The only thing novel in satoshis orginal paper was his estimation on how to solve the double-spending-problem, given that the chinese have long container +51%, its not even clear that problem has in actuality been solved, as its was assumed that BTC would be a peer2peer system, that not all the miners would be operating under one umbrella in china,

Lastly, Satoshi's paper isn't even interesting, as its a 100% clone of the prior BIS paper published in 1997, on how to make a 'digital bank', most interesting is that satoshi didn't even credit that paper, given that he copied it almost verbatim, other than adding his probabilistic solution to the double spending problem.

[HeRetiK]

[...]

Most of this stuff is right-time, at the right-place, many a people had tried to launch and digital-cash, this was the first that stuck to the wall,

Columbus being at a party with many noble Spaniards, where, as was customary, the subject of conversation was the Indies: one of them undertook to say: —"Mr. Christopher, even if you had not found the Indies, we should not have been devoid of a man who would have attempted the same that you did, here in our own country of Spain, as it is full of great men clever in cosmography and literature." Columbus said nothing in answer to these words, but having desired an egg to be brought to him, he placed it on the table saying: "Gentlemen, I will lay a wager with any of you, that you will not make this egg stand up as I will, naked and without anything at all." They all tried, and no one succeeded in making it stand up. When the egg came round to the hands of Columbus, by beating it down on the table he fixed it, having thus crushed a little of one end; wherefore all remained confused, understanding what he would have said: that after the deed is done, everybody knows how to do it; that they ought first to have sought for the Indies, and not laugh at him who had sought for it first, while they for some time had been laughing, and wondered at it as an impossibility.

The only thing novel in satoshis orginal paper was his estimation on how to solve the double-spending-problem [...]

Solving the double-spending problem in a trustless, decentralized system is one of the most revolutionary singular breakthroughs in computer science though. It was one of the problems that prior to satoshis work was deemed unsolvable by many. That's not too shabby.

[AltcoinTradingSignal.com]

The blockchain is technically a distributed ledger. It does work as a database, but it is more than that. It is, of course, new technology and is just one decade old. I will also like to add that blockchain is still in the infant stage and has a lot of room to grow. It is a technology that is currently changing almost every industry out there, just like the internet has done.

[cellard]

If you say blockchain is a data storing structure, do you agree it is one the worst database produced ever?

Your comment is very much analogous to "like judging the fish for its ability to climb a tree"
Block chain is not created for storing the data though it store transaction data.

Before Satoshi , people already proposed  electronic currency/Crypto currency. Even Satoshi was not the first to tell us about PoW consensus.
Everything was there and only problem is that we did not have any decentralized method that can work for distributed system (byzantine fault tolerance).
Block chain solved that problem.

It will be helpful if you read the below post and references mentioned there.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5066766

I will suggest you to understand CAP theorem and byzantine fault tolerance and you will get the answer to your current question.

Most will agree that Satoshi was not a very good programmer, he's clearly a math guy, that wrote code,

In terms of 'tech' nothing about btc is novel in the world of computer-sci, that means there is no nobel awards coming for satoshi@nsa,

Most of this stuff is right-time, at the right-place, many a people had tried to launch and digital-cash, this was the first that stuck to the wall,

The only thing novel in satoshis orginal paper was his estimation on how to solve the double-spending-problem, given that the chinese have long container +51%, its not even clear that problem has in actuality been solved, as its was assumed that BTC would be a peer2peer system, that not all the miners would be operating under one umbrella in china,

Lastly, Satoshi's paper isn't even interesting, as its a 100% clone of the prior BIS paper published in 1997, on how to make a 'digital bank', most interesting is that satoshi didn't even credit that paper, given that he copied it almost verbatim, other than adding his probabilistic solution to the double spending problem.

This is why I give a lot of credibility to the involvement of John Nash in the creation of Bitcoin. He could very well have been the main brainpower to put al the existing pieces together and come up with the thing. However there are other people that could have been involved into the hardest task (which as I said, was mostly the theory, the practice was already existing cryptographic stuff).

Whoever did the actual coding part learned under windows. Does anyone know if triple letter agencies are typically windows developers? This is something that always felt weird to me, I would have expected whoever coded Bitcoin to be a Linux guy (or a team).

[Weecoinofficial]

The blockchain is technically a distributed ledger. It does work as a database, but it is more than that. It is, of course, new technology and is just one decade old. I will also like to add that blockchain is still in the infant stage and has a lot of room to grow. It is a technology that is currently changing almost every industry out there, just like the internet has done.

It has a lot of doors to be knocked and grow, as you say. But I am wondering why so many people who claimed they know blockchain well do not consider it as a database. Oddly enough, it is just a data storing structure with a new method of encryption, confirmation, save, and retrieve. Is that so hard to realize?