[2019-06-24] Permissionless vs. Permissioned Blockchains, Argument Worth Having?

[bbc.reporter]

The skeptical me suspects that more of these types articles will be released in the next 2 years to set Ripple's, Facebook's, JPMorgan's storyboards in the minds of the public that there is a need for their permissioned blockchains and the tokens that reside in them.



Satoshi Nakamoto’s whitepaper outlines a vision for a peer-to-peer payment system that runs on decentralized architecture and has no use for an authoritative middle-man. The idea of a permissioned blockchain was nowhere to be seen. (In fact, the word blockchain was not actually mentioned in the whitepaper at all.)

JPMorgan took that vision and created Quorum, a private, enterprise-level blockchain designed for corporate use, with an emphasis on strict privacy settings. They weren’t, of course, the only ones.

The permissioned vs permissionless argument has divided the blockchain sector, and those divisions can often get heated. Is there room for both?

Read in full https://cryptobriefing.com/permissionless-vs-permissioned-blockchains-argument/

[1714941164]

1714941164

[figmentofmyass]

The permissioned vs permissionless argument has divided the blockchain sector, and those divisions can often get heated. Is there room for both?

it's not really an argument. permissioned blockchains simply don't address the problems that bitcoin solves. they are just a new take on existing trusted/custodial setups. it won't take long for people to realize they bare little difference from the same old banking institutions we've always had.

[elda34b]

The only problem is people who fool others by saying their product using permissioned blockchain will fix problem with today's centralized system.

Yeah. Facebook is fooling people.

I can't imagine how Facebook or any other centralized digital 'crypto' from those guys are going to solve the sound money problem. But well, they've successfully build a killer app with nice UX/UI.

[Betwrong]

Due to their efficiency, blockchain technologies will be used, and have been used already, for many various purposes. There is no "right way" of using them, all implementations are equally good as long as they serve the purpose. Electricity can be used for bringing light and warmth to our homes, as well as for powering electric chair for execution of the most dangerous criminals, or for surveillance, or for many other purposes, and we can't single out with certainty the "right way" of using it.

[hv_]

Permissioned 'blockchain' is a term of no use -> this is a (distributed) database - nothing new,  but one of the dumbest database design of no real use > MySQL will do better!
(= not immutable !)


only with PoW (buys you the DBA right for a block)  a blockchain makes sense (immutable time stamp machine)  >> Bitcoin works nice, but there is no proper SQL (yet >> bitdb ?)

[bbc.reporter]

The permissioned vs permissionless argument has divided the blockchain sector, and those divisions can often get heated. Is there room for both?

it's not really an argument. permissioned blockchains simply don't address the problems that bitcoin solves. they are just a new take on existing trusted/custodial setups. it won't take long for people to realize they bare little difference from the same old banking institutions we've always had.

Agreed. However that will not stop JPMorgan or Facebook from creating them. Ripple have done it and tried to reach millions of users, but it failed. However, Facebook already has the advantage of having users by the billions.

I reckon that the people not in the cryptospace do not care about decentralization or privacy. They care about accessability and the ease of use. Also maybe free token giveaways from Facebook hehehe.

[Harlot]

One thing heading these kinds of topics are of course the known No coiners or people at least are against with Bitcoin being decentralized and the first name that pops in my mind is of course no other man than Jaimie Dimon which will say how different are company run cryptocurrencies are compared to the decentralized ones. They will all have all kind of attention from video recorded interviews being shown in tvs to our very own news sources because its what creates a stir in the industry.

[dunfida]

The permissioned vs permissionless argument has divided the blockchain sector, and those divisions can often get heated. Is there room for both?

it's not really an argument. permissioned blockchains simply don't address the problems that bitcoin solves. they are just a new take on existing trusted/custodial setups. it won't take long for people to realize they bare little difference from the same old banking institutions we've always had.

Agreed. However that will not stop JPMorgan or Facebook from creating them. Ripple have done it and tried to reach millions of users, but it failed. However, Facebook already has the advantage of having users by the billions.

I reckon that the people not in the cryptospace do not care about decentralization or privacy. They care about accessability and the ease of use. Also maybe free token giveaways from Facebook hehehe.

Free token giveaways would really be there to increase the hype.I agree to your point that people arent aware on crypto existence would most likely
wont care about decentralization and got continue to be blinded by these centralized things.They believe that this is a great innovation or change up
but they dont realize that it is just a similar thing to those old centralized ways they get used to.

[CryptoBry]

The only problem is people who fool others by saying their product using permissioned blockchain will fix problem with today's centralized system.

Yeah. Facebook is fooling people. I can't imagine how Facebook or any other centralized digital 'crypto' from those guys are going to solve the sound money problem. But well, they've successfully build a killer app with nice UX/UI.

The problem is that people love to be fooled as long as they are getting something out of the whole thing. Just take the social media Facebook for that matter...people are aware that Facebook has not been a good repository of their data and yet I am seeing no big migration to other platform all because Facebook are in tuned to what the people need. And hopefully, everything can be the same with Libra.

Do people really care whether what they are using can be permissionless or permissioned? Majority of us don't even know the meaning of those terms. When a person all wanted is to use a good platform to send money to the other side of the globe, he will not be asking that much the details of the platform.

Now, of course, there will always be debate on this within the industry and while we are debating and even throwing some stones, sticks and even mud, Ripple and Libra are laughing to the bank.

[Kakmakr]

I am going to take this one step further, because I think regulators are going to differentiate between "public" and "private" and also "permissioned" vs "permissionless" very soon. They need a way to protect their "permissioned" Blockchains and to regulate it in a way to give advantage to their own technology <GovCoins> and to slow down or possibly ban the "permissionless" or "public" Blockchain technologies.

It will not be obvious in the beginning, but you will see "permissioned" technologies being boosted by governments and loopholes closed for other technologies.  

[hatshepsut93]

Due to their efficiency, blockchain technologies will be used, and have been used already, for many various purposes. There is no "right way" of using them, all implementations are equally good as long as they serve the purpose. Electricity can be used for bringing light and warmth to our homes, as well as for powering electric chair for execution of the most dangerous criminals, or for surveillance, or for many other purposes, and we can't single out with certainty the "right way" of using it.

What efficiency are you talking about? Blockchain is generally much more inefficient than other solutions, because it requires you to keep huge logs of transactions and synchronize nodes in real time. Centralization is more efficient than decentralization most of the time, and blockchain, if we are talking about something that resembles Bitcoin's protocol, was never designed for efficiency first - it was made for decentralization first. This is why Bitcoin process 11 transactions per second, while Visa processes 4,000.

[bbc.reporter]

I am going to take this one step further, because I think regulators are going to differentiate between "public" and "private" and also "permissioned" vs "permissionless" very soon. They need a way to protect their "permissioned" Blockchains and to regulate it in a way to give advantage to their own technology <GovCoins> and to slow down or possibly ban the "permissionless" or "public" Blockchain technologies.

It will not be obvious in the beginning, but you will see "permissioned" technologies being boosted by governments and loopholes closed for other technologies.  

A ban on permissionless blockchains? The government and regulators will be creating their own problems similar to what the cryptospace has brought all over again.