Google Introduces Cloud-Based Blockchain Node Service For Ethereum (coindesk.com) 44
Tech giant Google said Thursday it will be launching a cloud-based node engine for Ethereum projects. CoinDesk reports: The company said its Google Cloud Blockchain Node Engine will be a "fully managed node-hosting service that can minimize the need for node operations," meaning that Google will be responsible for monitoring node activity and restarting them during outages. A node is a type of computer that runs a blockchain's software to validate and store the history of transactions on a blockchain's network. At the time of launch, Google will be supporting only Ethereum nodes. Google's announcement signifies the growing attention that technology giants are giving toward blockchain, crypto and Web3 projects. "Blockchain is changing the way the world stores and moves its information," Google said in its announcement.
Typical (Score:4, Insightful)
Google showed up after unethical mining stopped (Score:3)
Typical Google, turning up late to the party when only the nasty dip no one wants to touch and light beers are left.
They showed up precisely after the switch from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake. When ethereum stopped wasting enormous amounts of electricity to maintain the block chain. When ethereum became more ethical, and google involvement wouldn't taint google with the environmental problems.
To be fair, proof-of-stake was always the goal, proof-of-work just temporary.
buzzword bingo! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I hate to sound old, but I just heard a bunch of buzzwords, but what problem is this trying to solve? Why do I want to pay Google Cloud prices to solve Etherium blockchains? Who is this marketed to?
Ordinary people who want a node on the ethereum network. Just like ordinary people who want a website. In either case its just a Linux VM on the internet you don't have to personally maintain.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think even google can answer those questions... they just see/predict a bunch of fools paying for something like this, so they offer it as a service. (e.g. pet rock had more uses than this... and it was an actual product once...)
Centralising the Decentralised (Score:1)
why? (Score:4, Informative)
"Blockchain is changing the way the world stores and moves its information," Google said in its announcement
Far be it from me to read the fine story, but WTF does this mean? We go back over every bit (no puns about it) of information, tag it and link it into a public ledger?
Or just all information from here on until the heat death of the universe?
WTF, again, is the point?
A public ledger, administered by a consensus (Score:3)
WTF, again, is the point?
A public ledger, administered by the consensus of a distributed group of people. Ideally a lot of "ordinary" people spread around the world.
That's it. That's blockchain. Don't assume it has anything to do with virtual currency, it does not. Virtual currency is just one possible thing that could be in a ledger, just one application of blockchain. The ledger could be keeping track of anything.
Re: (Score:2)
>A public ledger, administered by the consensus of a distributed group of people. Ideally a lot of "ordinary" people spread around the world.
The question stands: exactly what use is that? What actual problem we have in the world is it the best solution to? I mean, there's got to be SOMETHING it's good for, right? Google seems to be talking as if there's a TON of stuff this is needed for, so what exact stuff is that?
I have yet to see a convincing argument for any use of blockchain technology. There has to
Re: (Score:2)
I have yet to see a convincing argument for any use of blockchain technology. There has to be something, right?
I typed in "what can blockchain be used for" to google. Here is the first hit:
https://www.fool.com/investing... [fool.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But all of the theoretical advantages they name are overwhelmingly outweighed by the disadvantages of blockchains, since all of those things are better served by a normal, centralized transaction authority. Just because you can use something doesn't mean it's a good idea to use it. I have yet to see a strong use case for decentralized authority databases, and nothing on that list even comes close. They all would be best served by a trusted authority and a good database, wouldn't they?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I dismiss it because it has to be the ONLY feature they want, they have to accept so much other bad things to get it with blockchain. Name one problem solved by "get rid of central trusted authority" that is ok with no undoes, no privacy, and we are ok if people maybe game it with 51% attacks (or we are ok with wasting enormous amounts of electricity and time).
>Money transfers using blockchain can be less expensive and faster than using existing money transfer services
"Can" but aren't? Like, you have to
Re: (Score:2)
I dismiss it because it has to be the ONLY feature they want, ...
Factually wrong, as exemplified by faster and more private financial transfers.
Money transfers using blockchain can be less expensive and faster than using existing money transfer services
"Can" but aren't?
They aren't in very limited cases, for example having your bank transfer from your account at that bank to another account you have at that bank. When you transfer to a different person at a different bank there are delays on the scale of days.
Like, you have to account for the fact that the transaction is normally approved by people who are paid for that approval, so it costs cryptocurrency ...
Banks can also charge fees, and often do if you exceed some small number of transfer per month. And they really like to charge fees just for the privilege of being able to initiate a transf
Re: (Score:1)
It's truly a shame that you advocate for bitcoin. You're pompous and dismissive attitude puts people off and brings shame on the community
Re: (Score:2)
It's truly a shame that you advocate for bitcoin. You're pompous and dismissive attitude puts people off and brings shame on the community
I don't advocate for bitcoin. I just recognize that for some folks it has its useful moments.
Personally I would not recommend bitcoin for anything beyond an immediate transfer where neither the sender nor recipient is exposed to much volatility. Immediate exchange of fiat for crypto, transfer, immediate exchange of crypto for fiat.
As for being pompous and dismissive, that is generally reserved for fools. Like those that would say crypto has no possible valid use case.
Personally I see bitcoin as tem
Re: (Score:1)
What an elaborate way to call yourself a troll.
Re: (Score:2)
What an elaborate way to call yourself a troll.
Sharing what you find to be the uncomfortable truth is not trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
none of the advantages outweeigh the disadvantages.
To you, others disagree.
"should you use blockchain"
It depends. Your all or nothing attitude is silly. Its not for all applications, nor is it for no applications.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Read the Article, none of those use cases would most knowledgeable people consider blockchain the best or right solution.
And yet in the real world blockchain does financial transfers faster, and with more privacy, that the state of the art trusted centralized authorities. Account to account transfers can take days in the US. Be limited to a handful a month before extra fees kick in.
That covers the first example on the list.
Re: (Score:2)
None of those 15 uses are ones where blockchain is "the best solution" though...they all pretty much are made worse, not better, by using a distributed ledger with no centralized control. In every one of those cases it would be more efficient and safer to use a centralized, trusted authority. Blockchains make really awful databases, highly inefficient with little recourse to correct errors/thefts/attacks. The only reason to use such an otherwise poor system would be because no central system could be truste
Re: (Score:2)
None of those 15 uses are ones where blockchain is "the best solution" though...they all pretty much are made worse, not better, by using a distributed ledger with no centralized control. In every one of those cases it would be more efficient and safer to use a centralized, trusted authority.
LOL, you dismiss the very feature some people want, no central control, no profiling for targeted advertising. Read the first example: "The original concept behind the invention of blockchain technology is still a great application. Money transfers using blockchain can be less expensive and faster than using existing money transfer services. This is especially true of cross-border transactions, which are often slow and expensive. Even in the modern U.S. financial system, money transfers between accounts can
Re: (Score:2)
No central control IS NOT A FEATURE enterprises and governments want in a blockchain ...
Straw man. It varies with user, and it varies with application. Regarding the latter, for some applications corp and gov may very well like the decentralized control.
profiling for targeted advertising is actually easier not harder with blockchain as every record is on the chain, if you have access to the chain you have access to everything they have ever done to target advertising
Nope. You need off blockchain information.
bank transfers take seconds not days compared to blockchains minutes. yes banks delay the completion of the transfer for days but that has nothing to do with the technical transaction speed.
Another straw man. Why banks have delays is irrelevant. Plus some immediate transfers only seem that way. Sure they may show the transaction on both sender and recipient online portals but can the recipient actually withdrawl the amount without already having sufficient funds in the account to cover the
Re: (Score:2)
My bank has never charged me for doing an e-transfer yet, I send money to friends or family occasionally that way and it is fast (within a few minutes) and free. I assumed most banks (mine is a large, international one) did that.
Re: (Score:2)
My bank has never charged me for doing an e-transfer yet, I send money to friends or family occasionally that way and it is fast (within a few minutes) and free. I assumed most banks (mine is a large, international one) did that.
That can vary with the bank and legal jurisdiction. It also can vary with the recipient also being a customer at that bank and in that jurisdiction. And it can vary with the number of transactions per month, fee wise that is.
Also the transaction may be booked in a few minutes and appear in both sender and recipient online portals, but when can the recipient actually withdraw that money? Note that if a withdrawl is permitted immediately that may be backed by funds that are already in the account and exce
Re: A public ledger, administered by a consensus (Score:1)
End of Google (Score:2)
It will take a long time because they're so big but this time period marks their peak and down turn.
Growth maxed out, profit dropping, somehow managed to lose billions on cloud services and now getting into tulip bulb farming services after the crop has already bern harvested and sold at market.
Do no evil. Lololololol
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think so. Google has a long history of abandoned projects. This will be just one more of them on the list.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes eventually but look at their overall situation. The world is shifting and they're not. That's how companies die and we get jokes about saving the buggy whip manufacturers.
When internet advertising collapses google will lose 98% of its market value over night. Every day ad rates drop, there are more not-google controlled places to spend money, it's still not clear if all those ads actually pay for themselves for most ad buyers and google has yet to find a replacement for all that money. Those dozens
Blockchain use cases? (Score:2)
I get that anybody using the word "blockchain" seems to get extra attention but when you look at the details there doesn't appear to be anything beneficial that blockchain brings to these applications [youtube.com]. The whole notion that blockchain is good for verifying authenticity seems to be based on false claims.