> since an enterprise blockchain is append-only, immutable, time-stamped, and ea... | Hacker News

Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit

		CRConrad on Jan 18, 2022 \| parent \| context \| favorite \| on: It’s not still the early days of blockchain > since an enterprise blockchain is append-only, immutable, time-stamped, and each new entry has a hash of the previous view, it overcomes a lot of data integrity issues inherent to a distributed SQL database. And why couldn't a distributed SQL database be append-only, immutable, time-stamped, and implemented so each new entry has a hash of the previous state? (If you own it, just set it up to disallow updates or deletes, and allow inserts only through a trigger / stored procedure that adds the timestamp and hash.)

freeone3000 on Jan 18, 2022 [–]

It could, and then it'd be a blockchain in SQL, like MSSQL's BLOCKCHAIN table type. Those features are definitional to a blockchain.

CRConrad on Jan 19, 2022 | [–]

I take it using that data type in MS SQL Server doesn't use as much electricity as a small country, though?

tomc1985 on Jan 20, 2022 | | [–]

Yeah but it's not nearly as sexy

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact