Please don't go by the title. It is tongue in cheek but on reading the article will actually clear author's position. He is a supporter/worked on both technologies.
Author's position is that "haters" brought NoSQL down. (Side note - With this usage of "haters" I wonder if "critic" will ever be seen outside a dictionary).And same is happening with Blockchain. Too many critics. NoSQL proponents should help Blockchain because of the shared camaraderie of being a technology which were/are criticized heavily.
The main point of the article, like most in this space, is to re-define the word blockchain. What exactly is it? As per author it is byzantine fault tolerant state machine replication or BFTSMR. But there is not much to be said aside from the fact that "blockchain shouldn't be written off, just yet".
While agree on not writing off blockchain yet, I can't help but ask if blockchain solved BFTSMR - it happened over 9 years ago. And people/companies dint jump in until 1-2 years ago. So most of these people/companies are just following the hype train.
Except that (to use your acronym) BFTSMRs are fairly common and well understood. Git, to choose the obvious example, probably qualifies.
The only thing that's new about blockchain is that it removes the requirement for a quorum of nodes in the network to trust one another. It achieves this solitary feature by means of forcing all updates to be as computationally inefficient as is economically feasable. Even then the security guarantees only hold as long as no single party can directly or indirectly control 51% of the network's collective computing power.
Aside from the cryptocurrency use case, that's a fantastically unattractive feature profile. The more fully I grasp how much of blockchain's promises rest on proof of work as a cornerstone the less optimistic I am the technology will ever have any useful real world applications other than serving as the mcguffin in weird zero sum securities market games.
Haters did not bring NoSQL down. Unrealistic promises brought NoSQL down, and people bought into it without ever actually benchmarking anything because everyone else was doing it too.
That argument for support due to situation is pretty spurious 'crank magnetism' level like suggesting scientests of gut bacteria's role in human health should support homeopathy because both are outside mainstream established practices. NoSQL actually works for a task and isn't being pushed by people trying to rerun every financial scam in history but with tokens on a computer.
Author's position is that "haters" brought NoSQL down. (Side note - With this usage of "haters" I wonder if "critic" will ever be seen outside a dictionary).And same is happening with Blockchain. Too many critics. NoSQL proponents should help Blockchain because of the shared camaraderie of being a technology which were/are criticized heavily.
The main point of the article, like most in this space, is to re-define the word blockchain. What exactly is it? As per author it is byzantine fault tolerant state machine replication or BFTSMR. But there is not much to be said aside from the fact that "blockchain shouldn't be written off, just yet".
While agree on not writing off blockchain yet, I can't help but ask if blockchain solved BFTSMR - it happened over 9 years ago. And people/companies dint jump in until 1-2 years ago. So most of these people/companies are just following the hype train.