Comment

Comment by pythonaut_16

I agree that it's a buzzword,

but at least intuitively, a signed blockchain (in the true sense that each block contains a hash of the previous block) does seem to confer some additional security over a plain database.

A plain database would give you a log of events and who logged them, but security and trust resides in the database and how it's authenticated. Anyone with sufficient permissions could modify the database.

A signed block chain would give you a log of events where each party in the chain signs the new block (which includes a hash of the previous block) using their private key. The block can then be verified using each entities public key. To modify this system you would need to be able to breach the trust of the private keys.

{Lettuce from Farm A on date, <>}[Signed by farm A] => {Received lettuce on date, <Farm A block>}[Signed by shipping agent] => {Received lettuce on data, <Shipping agent block>}[Signed by Walmart store], etc

In theory then, Walmart would have a registry of the public keys of each agent in the chain, and upon receiving produce could verify the events of the whole block?

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton