Blockchain Decision Tree - Reading Assignment

Blockchain Business Course
#361
  1. It’s more effective, it’s faster to write and read data, it’s cheaper, it’s easy to find skilled developers
  2. You worhtlessly spend a lot of money, some processes might become slower because there is another integrated component which is not that fast and there might occur some confusion among employees. Also employees can become unmotivated because they would have to work with solution in which they don’t see a sense.
  3. In order to decentralize solution - to be more secured, it would be risky to have only one member in the blockchain.
1 Like
#362

1. What are the benefits of using a normal database instead of a blockchain?
Cheaper, quicker, and easier to implement, maintain, and store. Also when you do not require shared write access with trusted writers.

2. What do you think the consequences would be of using a blockchain when you in reality don’t need one?
It takes a long time to build it, complicates the environment, unnecessarily expensive, and slower speed of use.

3. Why should there be more than 1 writer to a database in order to justify a blockchain?
Shared records ensure verifiable and trusted information. To have a consensus you need more than 1 actor. The data needs to be reviewed and confirmed between the participants to provide transparency, which is the whole point of blockchain.

1 Like
#363

  1. What are the benefits of using a normal database instead of a blockchain?
    Effective for everyday work scenario, more effective writing data and reading data, cheaper, history in this kind of databases.

  2. What do you think the consequences would be of using a blockchain when you in reality don’t need one?
    Expensive takes a long time to develop, difficult, not much knowledge in this kind darabases, not much experience in projects.

  3. Why should there be more than 1 writer to a database in order to justify a blockchain?
    Because if you need only 1 writer, than you don´t need blockchain, you can use SQL, NoSQL or Graph.
    You need more than 1 writer to check transactions and have consensus.

1 Like
#364

  • What are the benefits of using a normal database instead of a blockchain?
    They are easier, faster to implement. Normal DB’s have a much larger talent pool to execute a new DB.

  • What do you think the consequences would be of using a blockchain when you in reality don’t need one?
    Cost to design and implement. The DB will be slower and require more servers to implement.

  • Why should there be more than 1 writer to a database in order to justify a blockchain?
    Having only one writer is kinda like having only one user. If your DB’s are small stick with a normal DB.

1 Like
#365

Blockchain Decision Tree - Qs

  1. What are the benefits of using a normal database instead of a blockchain?
    They are easier and cheaper to implement and maintain

  2. What do you think the consequences would be of using a blockchain when you in reality don’t need one?
    The cost in terms of money, time and wasted resources. It would also be harder to find knowledgable employees in the blockchain space.

  3. Why should there be more than 1 writer to a database in order to justify a blockchain?
    To have consensus you need more than 1 writer to check and verify transactions.

1 Like
#366

1.- Faster processes.
2.- Inefficiency and lack of privacy.
3.- To distribute trust.

1 Like
#367
  1. Faster for transactions to be validated and much less complicated and cheaper to build.
  2. It could lead to less flexibility, longer to create, more expense and less efficiency.
  3. If there is only 1 writer then there is no need to trust anyone other than the writer so it would be pointless to implement a blockchain.
1 Like
#368
  1. It’s much faster, cheaper and easier to implement and use.
  2. Added cost for features that you won’t use
  3. 1 writer and there’s no need for consensus since there’s only 1. Need multiple writers to really need the trust component a blockchain brings.
1 Like
#369

Not all businesses need blockchain! Hard to believe, right? While the technology is powerful, innovative and modern, it is also time consuming and expensive to develop, deploy, maintain. Traditional Database structures are very effective at collecting, organizing, storing and retrieving data. Many current business models may not need to dedicate valuable resources to implementing blockchain technology if a normal Database structure can meet their needs. In short, traditional databases are very cost effective. Also when it comes to maintaining traditional databases there is abundant, cheap talent available.
Choosing to implement a blockchain solution for business models that cannot fully take advantage of the properties, characteristics, and benefits of blockchain technology can expend vast amounts of time, financial resources, and human resources for a minimal impact on their business efficiency. Blockchains by nature are collaborative and distributed. If there is only one writer to a particular database, the need for consensus and collaboration is negated.

1 Like
#370
  1. Normal database is efficient, fast, easier and cheaper to use than a blockchain database.
  2. Higher cost, harder to change functionality and rules, speed of use.
  3. Because of transparency and security.
2 Likes
#371

  1. A normal database is faster to access, cheaper, much less complex to setup and to maintain it.

  2. A business could face more operational costs (technical staffing, maintenance, etc.) and less efficiency.

  3. Because if you fully trust everyone in your company (or vice-versa) or the decision makers (e.g. those with full signatory powers, shareholders / directors), then in theory one or anyone in the company should be able to have all the powers to play with the database. Otherwise, blockchain should be integrated in the business and create a trustless environment, requiring more than 1 writer, which is usually a good practice for the long term of any business (e.g. people can change business objectives, can get corrupted, can die…) and mitigate unnecessary risks.

1 Like
#372

1. What are the benefits of using a normal database instead of a blockchain?

  • Higher transaction throughput performance
  • Cheaper, easier to build, integrate and run than a blockchain
  • More control and governance over your datas

2. What do you think the consequences would be of using a blockchain when you in reality don’t need one?
Your business will not be the same efficient and will be more expensive.

3. Why should there be more than 1 writer to a database in order to justify a blockchain?
If there is only one writer, there is no need for a shared database or building more transparency which is the primary benefit of a blockchain (eliminate untrustable third parties if there is none)

2 Likes
#373

Blockchain Decision Tree - Reading.

  1. Benefits of using normal database instead of blockchain:
  • centralization sets the security and trust in the system
  • permissioned - it requires user accounts from an administrator who sets privileges on how users can access the database.
  • can be modified, managed, and control by a single user called an administrator.
  • uses tables, rows, column and graphs.
  • can be run in private networks or hosted on the cloud available to the public.
  • can be customizes depending on business requirements.
  • offers robust features that allows developers to create applications.
  • can be distributed to many locations.
  • it doe not run on many nodes, it just requires a powerful server to process data at the backend while a front end host provides an interface.
  • can be designed for both high volume transaction processing and data analytics.
  1. Consequences of using a blockchain when you don’t have to:
  • huge energy consumption
  • Scalability problems when it comes to high volume transactions.
  • optimization of performance is limited for processing time for larger transactions.
  • the bigger the blockchain, the more it consumes storage space and this makes it slow down.
  1. When trust is an issue or not guarantee and the credibility and integrity of the data is compromised, there should be more than one writer to a database in order to justify a blockchain.
2 Likes
#374

1- What are the benefits of using a normal database instead of a blockchain?
They are easier and cheaper to set up and lots of expertise already exists for them in the market.

2- What do you think the consequences would be of using a blockchain when you in reality don’t need one?
Unnecessary costs, wasted effort and frustration.

3- Why should there be more than 1 writer to a database in order to justify a blockchain?
Because only one writer should be fine using a standard database?

2 Likes
#375
  1. It is cheaper, faster and more efective to solve the most problems. For upgrades they are easier and cheaper to do, especially because there are a lot of developers compared to blockchain developers;
  2. Bigger costs, bad user experience and bad name created to blockchain;
  3. One of the principles of Blockchain is to have a shared information to a lot of writers and users, with trust. If there is only one writer, no need of consensus neither trust. The one writer is the judge, period.
1 Like
#376

  1. The benefits of using a normal database over a blockchain are that it’s cheaper and easier to implement and and run.

  2. The consequences of using a blockchain when you don’t need one are decreased performance and increased cost.

  3. There should be more than one writer to justify a blockchain to be able to achieve consensus.

1 Like
#377

  1. More efficient and faster, as they do not require consensus. Also information can be modified or deleted.

  2. It is an inefficient technology if the use case is not the adequate one.

  3. Because if there is no more than one writer consensus is not needed and blocks are not needed.

1 Like
#378

  1. Normal databases are efficient, faster, and cheaper.

  2. It would most likely be more costly, slower to use, and perhaps even damaging to business if you need to perform actions that are not available in a blockchain-based system.

  3. So that that the recorded truth is still managed by consensus of the peers and one person or entity does not complete control about what is put into the database.

1 Like
#379

  1. It is faster, easier for the management and building, as well as to find programmer with the needed skills, it is more regulated…cheaper and so on.

  2. Waste of money and time.

  3. For transparency, consensus needs multiple nodes.

1 Like
#380
  1. Faster, cheaper, more efficient. As a superuser you have full control on the database.
  2. Your processes would get slower and more expensive. Because of proof of work you would have to incentivize third parties to validate transactions. If you want to implement any changes or changes in rules you have to reach consens with other parties.
  3. You need to have at least two writers from which transactions have to be verified in a network.
1 Like