
Amazon Managed Blockchain -Easily create and manage scalable blockchain networks - irs
https://aws.amazon.com/managed-blockchain/
======
jeffbarg
I'm much more excited about this new offering:
[https://aws.amazon.com/qldb/](https://aws.amazon.com/qldb/) (Disclaimer: I
work at Amazon but not on AWS).

A "cryptographically verified transaction log" seems like a much better
alternative for almost all private blockchain use cases I've seen (there
aren't many that make sense).

It's cool that AWS offering a productized version of Ethereum for customers
who want it, but I imagine once people get past the buzzwords, it makes much
more sense to have something centralized, or use a secure public blockchain
like Ethereum / Bitcoin for public auditing.

~~~
julianozen
Agreed that QLDB makes sense for certain applications (voting). What is the
purpose of a managed (centralized) blockchain? Can decentralized nodes
nodes/parties be added to the network?

Disclaimer I am Ex-AWS and Ex-Amazon.

------
kirykl
>“Blockchain makes it possible to build applications where multiple parties
can execute transactions without the need for a trusted, central authority.“

Except in this case when it’s run by a central authority

------
mkirklions
So this is a centralized immutable database though Amazon?

This is old tech, but repackaged and marketed to people who 'want the
blockchain'.

I think the only reason alt-coins exploded is that people had little
understanding of how common databases were but lots of understanding of the
explosion in Bitcoin Price.

~~~
rdl
QLDB is the old tech (which is useful for the majority of important
centralizable applications). Managed Blockchain is hyperledger or (eventually)
ethereum, managed deployment on AWS.

------
toddwprice
For the average developer just starting out, pick Aurora Serverless (MySQL or
Postgres). It's probably all you will ever need. Relational databases are
still the best general purpose thing out there.

------
therealmarv
Step 1: Integrate this into your product.

Step 2: Market your product based on Blockchain technology.

Step 3: Fasten your seatbelt while beeing on the hype train!

------
eric_khun
I'm in the early stage building
[https://nodablock.com/](https://nodablock.com/) that is pretty similar to
Amazon Managed Blockchain. Excited to see them coming into that space!

------
bflesch
So it seems this is in competition with the IBM Hyperledger offering. Does
anybody know if the enterprise users of hyperledger prefer IBM's on-premise
solution or are hyperledger deployments mostly happening in the cloud already
anyways?

~~~
rdl
Given that most of these are at the POC stage still, I think AWS is generally
a win (easy to spin up demos, do POCs, etc.), even if on-prem ends up being
how you'd eventually want to deploy it.

I was more amused that the on-stage dude spent several minutes generally
shitting on blockchain before announcing Managed Blockchain. (I tend to agree
that non-currency non-subversive non-smartcontract apps generally don't
require or benefit from blockchains.)

------
decentralised
If the network is reachable from the outside and there are other block
producing & validating nodes elsewhere, then this could be an interesting
setup for enterprises after all it's a P2P network.

------
txcwpalpha
Sorry if this sounds rude, but please be sure to add a disclaimer that you
work at Amazon if you're going to be posting recommendations for AWS products
on HN.

It already seems like Amazon is astroturfing HN this week with the 12 AWS
articles currently on the front page (with 8 of them being posted by a
different Amazon employee), and it doesn't help if Amazon employees are
posting recommendations while pretending they don't work there (your use of
the phrase "they" when referring to Amazon is a little weird)

edit: You keep replying to this comment mentioning how you don't work there
and don't have any ulterior motived, and then deleting it. Why? You do clearly
work at Amazon based on your previous comments [1], which link to a GH profile
that clearly says you work at Amazon.

Whether you work specifically for AWS or not, it's still a conflict of
interest for an Amazon employee to be posting recommendations for Amazon
products and pretending not to be. It would be appropriate if you added a
disclaimer to your original comment.

edit: removing links to other user's profiles, etc

~~~
dang
You're crossing into harassing another user here, which is not cool. Bringing
in someone's extraneous personal details or history as ammunition is
particularly not allowed on HN.

When people post a good, informative comment, it's important not to punish
them for it. That trains the wrong behavior!

Believe me, we're as sensitive to HN getting spammed/astroturfed as you are.
But there's an obvious explanation for all the Amazon stories today, and it's
nothing nefarious:
[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20big%20tech%20confere...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20big%20tech%20conference&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0).

We detached this comment from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18553686](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18553686)
and marked it off-topic.

~~~
txcwpalpha
Linking to a user's previous comment _on this very website_ is "bringing in
extraneous personal details"? I don't see how the fact that someone works at
Amazon, when talking about Amazon products, is extraneous. It is very relevant
to the discussion.

Prior to my edit, the user posted a comment claiming that they didn't work
there, which was a lie, and yet they were deceptively still promoting Amazon
products. That fits the very definition of astroturfing.

Believe me, I don't want to discourage good, informative comments either, and
I tried to be polite when calling the user out, but this was a pretty clear
cut case of astroturfing. Even if not having nefarious intent, it's still
contributing to HN being a big billboard ad for AWS.

~~~
dang
Yes, that really is bringing in extraneous personal details and it is a step
into harassment. Most people's personal info is scattered over the internet,
including on HN. If you go looking, you can dig things up on almost anyone.
Bringing those back into a different context to get the upper hand in an
argument is a breach of civility.

I wouldn't call that comment astroturfing, either. HN has lots of employees
who work for tech companies, and if they know about something, it's good for
HN if they share the knowledge. The commenter was merely expressing a personal
preference for one technology over another.

~~~
txcwpalpha
The definition of "extraneous" is "irrelevant or unrelated to the subject
being dealt with". The user was talking about _Amazon_. How can the fact that
they work at _Amazon_ be irrelevant or unrelated?

> Bringing those back into a different context to get the upper hand in an
> argument is a breach of civility.

Is it, though? I'm just thinking of applying that same argument to other
situations in life and I don't know if it works. Is it a "breach of civility"
for employers to look at your past work experience before hiring you? Is it a
"breach of civility" for voters to consider the past political record of
candidates when evaluating them for office?

I would argue that bringing in historical information from a user's past
discussions is not "bringing those back into a different context", it is
enhancing the _current_ context. Mentioning that a user works at a company,
while in a discussion about that company, is providing additional useful
context to that discussion.

> I wouldn't call that comment astroturfing, either.

We can agree to disagree then, I suppose. The definition of astroturfing is
"the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization to make it
appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots
participants." Again, that fits, to a tee, what the user was doing. He
attempted to mask the sponsor of the message by lying about not working for
Amazon.

I'll agree with you that I shouldn't have called him out in a comment. I put
it in a comment because I wanted to give him a chance to edit his comment
rather than his whole comment being hidden/removed (since his comment did
provide good info), but perhaps should have just flagged it or emailed you
instead. This interaction doesn't give me much faith that anything would be
done about it, though.

~~~
tptacek
The most valuable attribute of HN this week has been discussions with Amazon
people about services announced at reInvent. It's surprising to me that anyone
would think to complain about that happening.

~~~
txcwpalpha
Does that not reinforce the idea that the fact that those aforementioned
people work at Amazon _is_ very relevant?

~~~
tptacek
Not to me? People can mention it if they want. All I care about is that people
have firsthand knowledge of these services. I don't care much how they got
that knowledge.

~~~
txcwpalpha
In the comment just prior to this you said the most valuable part of HN was
"Amazon people". Now you're saying it's irrelevant to you if they are "Amazon
people" or not?

I guess I'm very confused at what you're trying to say.

~~~
wolf550e
Replace "Amazon people" with "people knowledgeable about these services".

