This has been utter bs ever since Vitalik started pitching that the goal of ETH was to have the entire internet on a blockchain. No matter how you formulate it, there is no reason to. And if you like LN, then you're liking something that is specifically designed to be off-chain.
Isn't a "private blockchain" an oxymoron?
It is in most cases. However, hash-chaining and batchwise aggregation is something you can find, to name an example you know, in git too. The base chaining concept isn't all that different from what is used in Bitcoin.
We know that there are use-cases for a bare hash-chains-of-batched-data concept that don't need to be public while still being a good decentralized solution. I've used the principle in the past for multi-party low-volume, medium urgency data distribution that needed to be precise and non-repudiable.
I do agree with you that whenever someone advertises their solution as private blockchain, they are most likely just marketing some sloppy solution to a non-existing problem.
This has been utter bs ever since Vitalik started pitching that the goal of ETH was to have the entire internet on a blockchain. No matter how you formulate it, there is no reason to. And if you like LN, then you're liking something that is specifically designed to be off-chain.
It is in most cases. However, hash-chaining and batchwise aggregation is something you can find, to name an example you know, in
gittoo. The base chaining concept isn't all that different from what is used in Bitcoin.We know that there are use-cases for a bare hash-chains-of-batched-data concept that don't need to be public while still being a good decentralized solution. I've used the principle in the past for multi-party low-volume, medium urgency data distribution that needed to be precise and non-repudiable.
I do agree with you that whenever someone advertises their solution as
private blockchain, they are most likely just marketing some sloppy solution to a non-existing problem.