Is the following definition of blockchain by its wikipwdia page correct?

Where it is mentioned:

A blockchain is a decentralized, distributed and public digital ledger ...

Cannot we have a private blockchain? And if so, is the above proposition wrong ? when it says always a blockchain is public.

An example: Consider a company or organization which aims at using (permissioned) blockchain such that it is visible only for its (internal) employees. So, it uses ex. visibility property of blockchain but limited only to internal employees.

Please Note that here the question is NOT if using a permissioned blockchain is logical or not, but also the question is the exact definition of a blockchain. So, according to definition of blockchain in its wikipedia page, a permissioned blockchain is real blockchain?

Ok, you can create your own private blockchain. It will be visible only by yourself. Nobody will not even know about it. I do not see any reason for it, but you can call it "blockchain" if you want. You can call it "my private blockchain" or even give any name for this technology, for example "nsdfuishgreryuiw"

  • Consider a company or organization which aims at using (permissioned) blockchain such that it is visible only for its (internal) employees. So, it uses ex. visibility of blockchain but limited only to internal employees. – sas Aug 26 at 14:52

Their are two kinds in blockchain

  1. Permission less
  2. Permission-ed

In Permission less blockchain (Bitcoin) it's public. And anyone can join network. In Permission-ed blockchain (Private company) ,participants are known and it may not be public to everyone.

In regards to bitcoin, yes, the blockchain is always public. The reason behind it is that it needs to be. Without having public access to the bitcoin blockchain the whole system would not work. A miner for example could not verify pending transactions because how would he know if they are valid or not without checking the blockchain? The public blockchain is a part of what makes bitcoin so special - without it, bitcoin would not be a decentralized network. You would need a central authority which manages the blockchain and keeps it private, just like a ... bank.

So in conclusion, the blockchain need to be accesible to everybody who wants to take part. As bitcoin wants everybody to be able to take part, everybody needs access to the blockchain.

  • Thank you, but my question is, in general, blockchain and not necessarily Bitcoin blockchain. – sas Aug 26 at 15:50
  • If you could extend your question and describe what you are actually trying to achieve we might be able to help you more. – thesys Aug 26 at 15:53
  • I edited my question. My main question is about correctness of proportion of blockchain wikipedia page (i.e. blockchain is alway a public ledger?) and permissioned blockchain. – sas Aug 26 at 16:00
  • Well of course you could deploy some kind of "private blockchain technology" inside a company. But why not simply use the existing and working system? – thesys Aug 26 at 16:04
  • It's not my purpose, but also I want to be sure that if the existing definition of blockchain in its wikipedia page is correct? Is a permissioned blockchain public ? The fact that deploying a private blockchain is logical or not is another question. The question is definition of a blockchain. – sas Aug 26 at 16:27

Your Answer

 

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.