"Blockchain-as-a-Service" does it worth to use?

[cipherhut]

"Blockchain-as-a-Service" (BaaS) is a current buzz in the market as everyone wants ready to use solutions and services for their businesses. BaaS allows enterprises to use cloud-based services for building, hosting and deploying blockchain apps, agreements, and utilities. It will give the boost to the blockchain adoption for small-medium businesses quickly and cost-effectively on cloud-based platforms.
This is basic information anyone can gather on the internet, besides that what and how does it exactly work?

[1713867233]

1713867233

[TalkStar]

AFAIK worldwide telecom companies are going to use latest blockchain technology to provide much secure services for their customers. There is no way to deny that telecommunication is one of the leading business now and they have got billions of customers. They are pretty much interested to run all their system under they safety zone of blockchain technology in the future. Many telecom industries have already started it to get the advantage of this technology. You can easily get lots of information by searching on internet about the use of blockchain technology in telecom business.

For more detail you can take a look here; How blockchain can transform Telecom industry by 2025?

Not only telecom service providers are running after this technology but also banking sectors are showing positive approach for this. That day isn't too far when every single part of this world will be surrounded by blockchain technology.

You can visit below link to know about which business fields could take the advantage of block chain technology;
Many Uses of Blockchain Technologies in Business

[NeuroticFish]

I've read here a little: https://hackernoon.com/what-is-blockchain-as-a-service-28667754d6dc
Imho this could be an option for companies that need private blockchains for their use, where decentralization is not necessary.
But a good mention is that it's a buzz. Be aware that after all blockchain is "just" a database and not all projects need this kind of database.

So the answer to the question "woes it worth to use" this.. depends a lot on what you want to use it for.

[bob123]

Imho this could be an option for companies that need private blockchains for their use, where decentralization is not necessary.

Why would any company need a slow and inefficient datastructure if they don't need the one advantage of it - decentralization ?

There are more efficient ways to store and validate data immutable. If decentralization is not needed, a blockchain would just be way too slow and inefficient.
I can not think of any good example of application which would require to have a (centralized) blockchain. Anything should be implementable with a different type of database/-structure.

Is there any particular use case you have in mind which requires a blockchain without relying on decentralization at all ?

[Wind_FURY]

I've read here a little: https://hackernoon.com/what-is-blockchain-as-a-service-28667754d6dc
Imho this could be an option for companies that need private blockchains for their use, where decentralization is not necessary.
But a good mention is that it's a buzz. Be aware that after all blockchain is "just" a database and not all projects need this kind of database.

So the answer to the question "woes it worth to use" this.. depends a lot on what you want to use it for.

Then why not a SQL database, which is more efficient, heavily tested, and robust?

OP, "Blockchain as a Service" is not the "current buzz" anymore. But it was in 2016 and 2017 when companies were riding the blockchain bandwagon without understanding what the incentives were in Bitcoin, and why it became the most successful "blockchain".

[HeRetiK]

Due to the questionable merits of private blockchains it seems like anyone trying to sell you "blockchain the technology" is after your money, rather than trying to provide a proper solution.

I assume the B in BaaS stands for Bullshit?

[aundroid]

... besides that what and how does it exactly work?

Ok so how does it work?
The BaaS provider runs and maintains the nodes.
As a consensus mechanism, Microsoft Azure for example uses Proof-of-Authority.

Why would any company need a slow and inefficient datastructure if they don't need the one advantage of it - decentralization ?

Well maybe areas that require many transacting parties, like the supply chain.
Or to store critical data in an fault-tolerant way.

Consider a private blockchain as a p2p database, which guarantees robustness and fault tolerance.

A blockchain does however not necessarily add value.
http://doyouneedablockchain.com/

[NeuroticFish]

Why would any company need a slow and inefficient datastructure if they don't need the one advantage of it - decentralization ?

I am not here to decide/criticize who is using what. I stated the problems. There are a few use cases even for this (crippled) blockchain, although I would also use, as @Wind_FURY stated, a proper SQL database instead of this...

I assume the B in BaaS stands for Bullshit?

BaaS is, according to Google, Backend-as-a-Service. Not blockchain. Maybe they know something.

[amishmanish]

The thing about blockchain is that if a private, corporate entity wishes to use it for the "advantages" it offers, it will always be a dead use-case from the beginning.

When Satoshi formed the genesis block with the unspendable 50 BTC, it was not exactly for profit. People used to throw around 1000s of BTC on random services/ goods. They weren't exactly looking for profit. Things changed for Bitcoin gradually but the trustlessness of blockchain and the utility of cryptography for anonymity still remains.

Today if someone starts a blockchain for a "not-for-profit" purposes and finds a good enough use case that a lot of people would willingly contribute towards (by running the code on their machines), It can still become a big thing. Evolving better dialogue on Social media platforms is one thing that comes to mind. So I won't be too quick to jump to conclusions about blockchain applications or blockchain development, purely as an intellectual exercise, being completely useless.

Some of the hype that was created for logistic / Supply Chain (How pure are your bananas? How good is your Tuna) etc. will need explanations on their own that why would anyone do it that way.

The other major hype area was Financial instruments. Here, Smart Contracts running in a partly decentralized way where big institutions who mutually need each other but wouldn't like to mutually trust each other can still be a big use-case. Blockchain developers can definitely have some utility there, although nothing remotely like Bitcoin can come out of it.

[bob123]

Well maybe areas that require many transacting parties, like the supply chain.
Or to store critical data in an fault-tolerant way.

Both can be implemented relatively easy and convenient using a classical database.
If you don't want it to be decentralized, a blockchain is not needed for the supply chain. Just host a standard DB and give all actors access to it.

Fault-tolerant storage can also be implemented using a classical database. Just use signatures/checksums/etc.
There are many possibilities.

Using a blockchain is not efficient at all. At least in those two use cases.

[Wind_FURY]

Reading some of the posts. I believe some of us might need to research/read more about Bitcoin, understand the incentives, and understand what makes that "blockchain" "work", and then I believe we would then understand why other "blockchain" "implementations/solutions" would be pointless.

[franky1]

i think a few people trying to narrow a blockchain definition to bitcoin by saying people need to research bitcoin to understand blockchains.. has no clue.

blockchains dont need to be decentralised.
blockchains dont even need to hold financial data.
blockchains dont even need a financial incentive to stay engaged.
the security of blockchains is about data distribution. not decentralisation.
this means companies can have their own internal blockchain just for their company use.
this is because they may not want one single employee to have ability to change data.

the purpose of a blockchain is about secure distributed data.
imagine a bank, where each local town bank office branch was a node. together they work as a network without worrying about a central server. no need for a HQ with auditors, IT guys. if one node goes down, another is sent through the post.
and again about the auditing, it becomes self auditing and trusted, transparent data.
these days for work/home/tax reasons people like to have access to bank statements for upto 6 years, so retaining data securely is better done by distributing it, rather than one central server.

a few people dont also understand, due to lack of thinking outside the bitcoin box. that a blockchain does not need to be a single chain.
again imagine banks. but in each state(region) is their own chain and then ontop of that is a master chain that holds each regions block id hash. this way a node does not have to store an entire countries data, but just its own region. and still able to verify all the blocks locally are correct, and that other regions are correct too.

the flaw of blockchains even though the data is distributed, is who designs the software that manages the data. as thats the part where people worry about bad actors taking control.

in a open world utility its best to have multiple developers and differing full node software to keep each other in check. but private blockchains that only benefit the organisation using it. their own distribution can be sufficient

[1Referee]

the flaw of blockchains even though the data is distributed, is who designs the software that manages the data. as thats the part where people worry about bad actors taking control.

in a open world utility its best to have multiple developers and differing full node software to keep each other in check.

It's really, really hard to think of ANY open-source project where the multiple less dominant implementations aren't going to follow the main implementation. In that regard, I dare to question how much effect it really has if there are multiple developers behind each implementation. Just because developers appear to be distributed it doesn't mean they add more decentralization to that project.

Ethereum is quite an example to pay attention to. It has the largest developer-base, yet the will and roadmap of Vitalik is what they follow. Vitalik can talk about how redundant he has become all day long, but that's obviously not the case with how he is still he main man pulling the strings behind the scenes.

[franky1]

the flaw of blockchains even though the data is distributed, is who designs the software that manages the data. as thats the part where people worry about bad actors taking control.

in a open world utility its best to have multiple developers and differing full node software to keep each other in check.

It's really, really hard to think of ANY open-source project where the multiple less dominant implementations aren't going to follow the main implementation. In that regard, I dare to question how much effect it really has if there are multiple developers behind each implementation. Just because developers appear to be distributed it doesn't mean they add more decentralization to that project.

you seem to forget the past.
there are many examples of bugs in an implementation, where if everyone was using the same software the network would crash. and now core have vetoed out other teams by treating them as enemies everytime they disagree with core, not only makes core too tyranical by evading other options, but also if everyone was using just core and core had a bug. the network is screwed.

but i do like the way you worded your reply. where you cant imagine "any open source project where less dominant implementations dont follow the main implementation"

there should not be a main implementation, no dominance, no need to be a 'follower'.. it should be an open community project. but hey, people dont believe in self control or open choice no more and just want to trust a certain organisation.. which is the flaw people forget when trying to understand the purpose of this industry

[HeRetiK]

blockchains dont need to be decentralised.
blockchains dont even need to hold financial data.
blockchains dont even need a financial incentive to stay engaged.
the security of blockchains is about data distribution. not decentralisation.
this means companies can have their own internal blockchain just for their company use.
this is because they may not want one single employee to have ability to change data.

Decentralization is definitely just a means to an end. Even the distributed nature of public blockchains is just a means to an end though, namely permissionlessness. In this regard data distribution is about reliability however, not security. A huge but subtle difference.

Security is what you get by means of an appropiate consensus algorithm (eg. PoW, PoS, etc) or by some form of centralized access control. The former is necessary for securing a public ledger that can be openly accessed and edited. The former is however unnecessary overhead for any form of private ledger. For that centralized access controls are more than sufficient. Even centralized access controls can be set up in a way that ensure that no single employee can manipulate the whole database. That's how IT security in finance has worked for decades.

So long story short, sure, a company may use a private blockchain. Whether it makes any sense is a different question though, as for most use cases that are often touted for private blockchains many more appropiate solutions already exists.

[Wind_FURY]

franky1, then do the people who say that they need a "centralized, private blockchain", really do need a database?

Is SWIFT a blockchain? Twitter? Facebook?

[aundroid]

franky1, then do the people who say that they need a "centralized, private blockchain", really do need a database?

I guess you mean "really do need a blockchain" ?

I usually like to refer to the following flow chart, which can be accessed via the IEEE digital library. (login/student credentials required)


[source: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8525392]

TTP stands for Trusted Third Party btw.

Is SWIFT a blockchain? Twitter? Facebook?

Well SWIFT is a system that simply pushes payment messages out, and that up to 24 million times a day.
It's also a very conservative system, with rather slow 'digital transformation'.

facebook and co. earn money with your data, so I don't think they will utilize blockchain technology in the near future. 
But Decentralized Social Networks already continue to grow.

You can use steemit (on the steem blockchain) or bittube that allow you full ownership of your data.

[HeRetiK]

I usually like to refer to the following flow chart, which can be accessed via the IEEE digital library. (login/student credentials required)


[source: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8525392]

It seems to be an incomplete flowchart though.

In its current state both "Public Permissioned Blockchain" and "Private Permissioned Blockchain" results could be replaced with "Git" and it would still hold true. I mean that's pretty much how open source works (stored, verifiable versioning states; multiple writers, many of which are unknown, most of which are untrusted; and one or more project maintainers that ensure code integrity but are not always online).

I guess it would get closer by adding a real-time requirement to the workflow decision tree but that then still seems kinda flimsy.

[franky1]

franky1, then do the people who say that they need a "centralized, private blockchain", really do need a database?

blockchain is a database... what businesses need to ask is what,why how,who accesses it.
you have been very open to your subtle hints that you hate blockchain and you think people need to move off blockchains to either LN or liquid for btc, as well as saying blockchains wont work for other uses in different sectors. but you really need to, and i mean this sincerely, really need to do some dang research.

i understand you have limited technical knowledge, i understand your learning from a certain group of people with certain intentions. but it really is time you done some out of the box thinking.

imagine a central database, and then needing to back it up periodically. and because its central. have IT guys, auditors, security professionals monitoring the central server to ensure tampering dos not occur.

imagine a distributed database, which by its own design backs up each other (if one goes down others are available) where by design individuals cant tamper with it, it doesnt ned it, security, auditors either.

try not to think about BTC usecase. and think about blockchain as a separate technology.

the only part i laugh about the topics creators link. is that its all managed on microsoft servers. where as true blockchains are where the separate nodes are the 'servers' thus no need for microsoft as a manager, and instead just as a software developer

[franky1]

when it comes to wanting to edit or change a certain piece of data by multiple users, then yes alternatives exist. but when it comes to needing to retain a secure copy of data that cannot be edited then thats where blockchains strengths are.

like bank transfers and retaining bank statements for years
parcel/goods delivery which can trace back to source (food distribution industry love this)
car manufacturing/maintenance logs
hospital records
education/student grades
land ownership authorities
property management/repair
intellectual property authorities
insurance
.. the list goes on

im not saying everyone has to convert to blockchain, as thats stupid. but many in this topic are acting as if blockchains are useless and impractical for any use.