Maersk may be heading toward running container ownership claims on Blockchain tech, but they will be in full control of the network and the deciding nodes.
Sometimes it looks like people throw blockchain in a project not on technical merits but because they think the buzzword is a VC magnet.
That's because they do. A Blockchain without decentralization (and therefore no need for proof-of-work consensus) is functionally just an immutable, append-only object database - the same sort of data structure that any modern, distributed source code version control system (like Git) has always used, before "Blockchain" was even a thing.
Instead of "proof of stake" as the consensus model, you could build a "consortium blockchain" where other parties (ie your big customers) get to validate the blocks themselves in addition to your servers. "Proof of authority" or "delegated proof of stake" are consensus models for this approach. This would be helpful if you want the data to be private but you want to increase trust within your platform.
You’d need to hack the majority of the nodes to alter the data which isn’t going to happen unless a government wants to steal a container.
It doesn’t matter that it’s expensive either. It currently costs more to transfer the claims papers than it costs to ship the actual container, so the cost-benefit is easily obtainable.
IMO there is a difference between “blockchain” and “blockchain technology”. The latter means taking parts of or inspiration from how blockchains are built.
Even if the technology is not be specific to the blockchain originally, blockchain still helped bring these ideas into the minds of the masses and so I think it is fair to characterize some of these things as “blockchain technology” when that is how some people came to know of them.
>Even if the technology is not be specific to the blockchain originally, blockchain still helped bring these ideas into the minds of the masses and so I think it is fair to characterize some of these things as “blockchain technology” when that is how some people came to know of them.
What you just described here, when done to obtain money or publicity - is often referred to as "charlatanism".
If someone was introduced to a steamboat and they’d never seen a boat before (perhaps a far fetched example but stick with me here), and they made a rowboat and they said that they had built it on steamboat technology (because of the boat part) I think that would not be entirely unreasonable.
A charlatan on the other hand would be someone that sold you a steamboat and then gave you something that was not a steamboat, like for example a big rock or something.
A charlatan decieves people for fame or for money. Someone that sells something as “blockchain” when it’s not is a charlatan. Someone that was inspired to build something by blockchain and describes it as using “blockchain technology” should not deserve to be called a charlatan IMO.
It is still fair to point out that they are not actually using a blockchain, but calling them a charlatan is disingenuous because then what kinds of words should we use to describe the actual charlatans?
If we go back to your original claim, you appear to be implying that a blockchain, to begin with, is a good solution of a immutable log -- it is not.
Depending on the scenario, there are in ALL cases that I have encountered at least, a better alternative solution, which is more efficient, already well researched, developed and tested. If you recon that you know an example where this is not the case, I would love to hear about it.
At the same time, you really do see people and companies who every single day, do use the blockchain as an excuse for a little extra gains in their stock valuation, like Maersk (the same Maersk who cannot even figure out how to divide their network into virtual lans, or have som network level malware protection).
But my point was that to someone who had never seen any boat at all everything that makes up the steamboat is steamboat technology.
The idea of an immutable log has been around far longer than any blockchain though, so referring to it as "blockchain technology" sounds a bit silly.
What kind of a CTO works for 50K = I guess only those gagging to put "CTO" on their resume? Also exactly how much does an average engineer get when the CTO makes 50K ... Participating in such BS games is fraud against yourself and anyone who receives your CV in future. If you send me your CV and it has blockchain/ethereum/IOTA or similar listed, you'll get shifted to the other pile before you can say proof-of-work.
As a sidenote, I see a lot of "normie" devs (as in formerly working for "big data", "cloud" etc. projects) joining blockchain startups suddenly.
You didn't like the name ?
And yes there are a lot of devs that seem to have interest in blockchain.
For swimming in piles of crypto cash and being on the bleeding edge, these cats sure are skinny on the market rate for something super hard with a high expertise requirement coming from a limited pool.
What a joke.
Considering that there are a few pretty big players already:
I previously had a job board that wasn't targeting any area in particular. It didn't worked so i decide to rebrand it on to focus on blockchain technology because i find that it was hard to find a job in this field.
Regarding other big players, i have to agree. But i wanted to create a very simple job board, for developers by a developer. I still have a lot of work but i hope i will be able to differentiate myself from the other websites.
Maybe you are right and i should be more open to other consensus protocols.
I will keep that in mind, thank you for you feedback !
I keep it as simple as possible but i will improve it with some feature (like filters) from feedback that i can gather.
I hope some of you will find this project usefull, and, of course, i'm staying available if you have any suggestions.
For now it's a mix of me posting offer i cand find and business owner publishing for their company.
I have to work more to make the recruiter more aware of my plateform right now.