Hyperledger

[bitcoinrocks]

Is anyone familiar with this technology and how it relates to "conventional" crypto?

http://hyperledger.com/

[1713863397]

1713863397

[1713863397]

1713863397

[1713863397]

1713863397

[barbierir]

From reading the website it is a blockchain technology aimed to banking and financial institutions, so they have a different goal from Bitcoin and similar cryptocurrencies. They don't use a currency and PoW because it is expected to be used among well-known and trusted peers.

[nakaone]

They don't use a currency and PoW because it is expected to be used among well-known and trusted peers.

it is quite an interesting approach aiming for the financial industry

http://hyperledger.com/posts/2015-06-05-needing-a-token-to-operate-a-distributed-ledger-is-a-red-herring.html

what I do not get is why they do not simply share database instead of using a blockchain - maybe one could clarify

[chennan]

Hyperledger's nodes have an Extended SSL Certificate, with a maximum of 3 nodes per company.  The companies who issue asset have the incentive to run this high security requirement nodes! Hyperledger is quite flexible to meet specific requirements from different company! Every single issued asset could have its own rule!

[bitcoinrocks]

Maybe it's more like Ripple and Stellar than Bitcoin?

[Nxtblg]

Maybe it's more like Ripple and Stellar than Bitcoin?

That's what they seem to be aiming for, tho' it looks more like a white-label solution for the financial industry. Who knows...banks et. al. might wind up using the wonderful blockchain for nothing more than a kind of multisig to prevent or spot embezzlement.

Banks: The More Unimaginative, The Better!

[hv_]

News from IBM on that

http://youtu.be/m9ft-M0WKks

[Corepolitics]

News from IBM on that

http://youtu.be/m9ft-M0WKks

Bitcoin holders should be keeping an eye out on developments at camp Hyperledger instead of ranting about ETH, IMO. Take a peek at the latest whitepaper.

https://github.com/hyperledger/hyperledger/wiki/Whitepaper-WG

[hv_]

Next hit

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361602.msg14315068#msg14315068

[Melbustus]

The bottom line for any of this is that you can't do true irreversibility without fairly strict decentralization; eg, where lots of lots of people/entities can be validators in the system. Bitcoin's miners provide this function, and critically, they do not have to be authorized by anyone or pre-approved in any way. They can be anonymous, join and leave the network at any time, etc. This is possible because of Bitcoin's *economic* incentive structure; eg, earning a token that's *native* to the ledger: bitcoins. Once you remove the native token incentivization, you've necessarily created a system that has to use some sort of pre-authorization; eg, "trusted entities". And once you have that, well, you're back to the problem that the entire idea of a validated cryptographically linked chain of blocks was invented solve in the first place!

These permissioned ledger systems can certainly be a useful tool for collections of organizations, but make no mistake: they fundamentally do not and cannot solve the same problem Bitcoin solves.

[Nxtblg]

The bottom line for any of this is that you can't do true irreversibility without fairly strict decentralization; eg, where lots of lots of people/entities can be validators in the system. Bitcoin's miners provide this function, and critically, they do not have to be authorized by anyone or pre-approved in any way. They can be anonymous, join and leave the network at any time, etc. This is possible because of Bitcoin's *economic* incentive structure; eg, earning a token that's *native* to the ledger: bitcoins. Once you remove the native token incentivization, you've necessarily created a system that has to use some sort of pre-authorization; eg, "trusted entities". And once you have that, well, you're back to the problem that the entire idea of a validated cryptographically linked chain of blocks was invented solve in the first place!

These permissioned ledger systems can certainly be a useful tool for collections of organizations, but make no mistake: they fundamentally do not and cannot solve the same problem Bitcoin solves.

Yeah...but to an unimaginative bank, a "solution" is often a trade-off. If all they're only interested in preventing embezzlement, the trade-off thinking would go like this: "Is the blockchain solution decentralized enough to make embezzlement [practically] impossible? Is it centralized enough to keep it under control [eg., for rolling back unauthorized transactions]?"

Banks are legacy institutions. They roll with what they got, and their "solutions" tend to be improvements at the margin.

[hv_]

The bottom line for any of this is that you can't do true irreversibility without fairly strict decentralization; eg, where lots of lots of people/entities can be validators in the system. Bitcoin's miners provide this function, and critically, they do not have to be authorized by anyone or pre-approved in any way. They can be anonymous, join and leave the network at any time, etc. This is possible because of Bitcoin's *economic* incentive structure; eg, earning a token that's *native* to the ledger: bitcoins. Once you remove the native token incentivization, you've necessarily created a system that has to use some sort of pre-authorization; eg, "trusted entities". And once you have that, well, you're back to the problem that the entire idea of a validated cryptographically linked chain of blocks was invented solve in the first place!

These permissioned ledger systems can certainly be a useful tool for collections of organizations, but make no mistake: they fundamentally do not and cannot solve the same problem Bitcoin solves.

Yeah...but to an unimaginative bank, a "solution" is often a trade-off. If all they're only interested in preventing embezzlement, the trade-off thinking would go like this: "Is the blockchain solution decentralized enough to make embezzlement [practically] impossible? Is it centralized enough to keep it under control [eg., for rolling back unauthorized transactions]?"

Banks are legacy institutions. They roll with what they got, and their "solutions" tend to be improvements at the margin.

Correct. And they will do anything that let them kick out people and save money...

[Melbustus]

The bottom line for any of this is that you can't do true irreversibility without fairly strict decentralization; eg, where lots of lots of people/entities can be validators in the system. Bitcoin's miners provide this function, and critically, they do not have to be authorized by anyone or pre-approved in any way. They can be anonymous, join and leave the network at any time, etc. This is possible because of Bitcoin's *economic* incentive structure; eg, earning a token that's *native* to the ledger: bitcoins. Once you remove the native token incentivization, you've necessarily created a system that has to use some sort of pre-authorization; eg, "trusted entities". And once you have that, well, you're back to the problem that the entire idea of a validated cryptographically linked chain of blocks was invented solve in the first place!

These permissioned ledger systems can certainly be a useful tool for collections of organizations, but make no mistake: they fundamentally do not and cannot solve the same problem Bitcoin solves.

Yeah...but to an unimaginative bank, a "solution" is often a trade-off. If all they're only interested in preventing embezzlement, the trade-off thinking would go like this: "Is the blockchain solution decentralized enough to make embezzlement [practically] impossible? Is it centralized enough to keep it under control [eg., for rolling back unauthorized transactions]?"

Banks are legacy institutions. They roll with what they got, and their "solutions" tend to be improvements at the margin.

Agreed, and that's fine. It's just that comments like Corepolitics' above make me feel the need to point out the details.

[Nxtblg]

The bottom line for any of this is that you can't do true irreversibility without fairly strict decentralization; eg, where lots of lots of people/entities can be validators in the system. Bitcoin's miners provide this function, and critically, they do not have to be authorized by anyone or pre-approved in any way. They can be anonymous, join and leave the network at any time, etc. This is possible because of Bitcoin's *economic* incentive structure; eg, earning a token that's *native* to the ledger: bitcoins. Once you remove the native token incentivization, you've necessarily created a system that has to use some sort of pre-authorization; eg, "trusted entities". And once you have that, well, you're back to the problem that the entire idea of a validated cryptographically linked chain of blocks was invented solve in the first place!

These permissioned ledger systems can certainly be a useful tool for collections of organizations, but make no mistake: they fundamentally do not and cannot solve the same problem Bitcoin solves.

Yeah...but to an unimaginative bank, a "solution" is often a trade-off. If all they're only interested in preventing embezzlement, the trade-off thinking would go like this: "Is the blockchain solution decentralized enough to make embezzlement [practically] impossible? Is it centralized enough to keep it under control [eg., for rolling back unauthorized transactions]?"

Banks are legacy institutions. They roll with what they got, and their "solutions" tend to be improvements at the margin.

Agreed, and that's fine. It's just that comments like Corepolitics' above make me feel the need to point out the details.

Okay, got it. Thanks.

[bitcoinrocks]

These permissioned ledger systems can certainly be a useful tool for collections of organizations, but make no mistake: they fundamentally do not and cannot solve the same problem Bitcoin solves.

Agreed, they are out to solve different problems.

[Ucy]

The bottom line for any of this is that you can't do true irreversibility without fairly strict decentralization; eg, where lots of lots of people/entities can be validators in the system. Bitcoin's miners provide this function, and critically, they do not have to be authorized by anyone or pre-approved in any way. They can be anonymous, join and leave the network at any time, etc. This is possible because of Bitcoin's *economic* incentive structure; eg, earning a token that's *native* to the ledger: bitcoins. Once you remove the native token incentivization, you've necessarily created a system that has to use some sort of pre-authorization; eg, "trusted entities". And once you have that, well, you're back to the problem that the entire idea of a validated cryptographically linked chain of blocks was invented solve in the first place!

These permissioned ledger systems can certainly be a useful tool for collections of organizations, but make no mistake: they fundamentally do not and cannot solve the same problem Bitcoin solves.

Good comment. Sorry for disturbing this old topic. I got here researching Hyperledger on Google.

Hyperledger! . I knew "they" were up to something whenever they promote "Blockchain" technology.

"They don't use a currency and PoW because it is expected to be used among well-known and trusted peers ." — Barbier

Now tell me why this should be considered as a Blockchain when only the "well known" and trusted peers are allowed in the Network. A Blockchain must be open to all, participants can be anonymous and it must be a global network.

[alexvilis]

Hyperledger is the key to blockchain becoming transformative

Not since the world wide web itself was conceived in the mind of Sir Tim Berners-Lee, has a technology promised a broader and more fundamental revolution than blockchain. Much has been written about it in recent months, especially following the fluctuations in the value of Bitcoin that have caused a massive volatility in the crypto-market. Yet, whilst blockchain and the various cryptocurrencies that it underpins are getting all the headlines, some of the biggest names in the business including Accenture, Cisco, IBM, Fujitsu and SAP are backing a different horse — Hyperledger.

The Hyperledger project was created in December 2015 by the Linux Foundation with the aim of advancing cross-industry collaboration of the blockchain and other distributed ledgers. A particular focus of Hyperledger from the outset was on improving the performance and reliability of such solutions so that they could become capable of underpinning the digital transformation being sought by the world’s largest businesses. The project is built upon open protocols and standards by means of a framework for use-specific modules.
https://medium.com/omnitude/hyperledger-is-the-key-to-blockchain-becoming-transformative-82bb47901869

[Tobaa]

News from IBM on that

http://youtu.be/m9ft-M0WKks

Why do these giant tech coy always water down cryptocurrencies? 

Hyperledger is just a Private Blockchain Solution developed for Institutions and big coy.

In my opinion, this will attract governments attention more but it will defeat the ultimate aim of Blockchain which the general public wants - a public blockchain.

Pls tell me, do you think I should spend my time studying Hyperledger or Ethereum Blockchain; I'm thinking of starting a course on one of those blockchains

PS: I'm not a developer but on the learning part to be one.

[hv_]

What is actually the role of hyperledger in the development of smart contracts.

https://coincodex.com/article/2881/the-role-of-hyperledger-in-the-development-of-smart-contracts/

Don't know.  Metanet.icu will do all that nice stuff / based on Bitcoin - the clean protocol