Is there any benefits to a distributed computing architecture outside of cryptocurrencies?
I was recently talking to a German start-up that was in an accelerator programme. They are building a product which is a distributed database that they are proposing will have efficiency benefits over companies which keep their data on their own centralized database. They talked about leveraging the computational capacity of different computers in the company to increase efficiency. From what I know about distributed computing, it is more inefficient than having a centralized architecture. Are there scenarios where it provides some efficiency benefits and is this being applied?
decentralization
asked 3 hours ago
AdaptiveAnalysisAdaptiveAnalysis
585
add a comment |
I was recently talking to a German start-up that was in an accelerator programme. They are building a product which is a distributed database that they are proposing will have efficiency benefits over companies which keep their data on their own centralized database. They talked about leveraging the computational capacity of different computers in the company to increase efficiency. From what I know about distributed computing, it is more inefficient than having a centralized architecture. Are there scenarios where it provides some efficiency benefits and is this being applied?
decentralization
asked 3 hours ago
AdaptiveAnalysisAdaptiveAnalysis
585
add a comment |
I was recently talking to a German start-up that was in an accelerator programme. They are building a product which is a distributed database that they are proposing will have efficiency benefits over companies which keep their data on their own centralized database. They talked about leveraging the computational capacity of different computers in the company to increase efficiency. From what I know about distributed computing, it is more inefficient than having a centralized architecture. Are there scenarios where it provides some efficiency benefits and is this being applied?
decentralization
asked 3 hours ago
AdaptiveAnalysisAdaptiveAnalysis
585
I was recently talking to a German start-up that was in an accelerator programme. They are building a product which is a distributed database that they are proposing will have efficiency benefits over companies which keep their data on their own centralized database. They talked about leveraging the computational capacity of different computers in the company to increase efficiency. From what I know about distributed computing, it is more inefficient than having a centralized architecture. Are there scenarios where it provides some efficiency benefits and is this being applied?
decentralization
decentralization
asked 3 hours ago
AdaptiveAnalysisAdaptiveAnalysis
585
asked 3 hours ago
AdaptiveAnalysisAdaptiveAnalysis
585
asked 3 hours ago
AdaptiveAnalysisAdaptiveAnalysis
585
asked 3 hours ago
AdaptiveAnalysisAdaptiveAnalysis
585
asked 3 hours ago
AdaptiveAnalysisAdaptiveAnalysis
585
585
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The only systems which benefit from being distributed are ones that display the property of being "embarrassingly parallel", or some approximation of it. Tasks which do not require a significant amount of data to be transmitted between operating systems, or those which don't require a significant amount of coordination fit this description well. Typically anything like a database is poorly suited to being distributed due to the need for overall consistency, which is very difficult to achieve across a distance.
Bitcoin is the opposite of a distributed system at the node level, every participant in the system is expected to repeat the process of validation in perfect accuracy with the hundreds of thousands, or millions of previous attempts at synchronization that have happened before it. As the number of nodes increases, there is no change in the amount of computation done in either direction.
Generally speaking anything claiming to improve efficiency by using a decentralized, or distributed network should be met with skepticism, simply because this is typically an uphill battle that is taken on for other reasons despite its inefficiency, not in an attempt to gain efficiency. To exemplify this, Bitcoin would be most efficient, most usable, and most reliable if it ran on a single server, but that would largely defeat the design brief of being trust-less.
answered 3 hours ago
AnonymousAnonymous
8,66911028
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "308"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbitcoin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f83827%2fis-there-any-benefits-to-a-distributed-computing-architecture-outside-of-cryptoc%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The only systems which benefit from being distributed are ones that display the property of being "embarrassingly parallel", or some approximation of it. Tasks which do not require a significant amount of data to be transmitted between operating systems, or those which don't require a significant amount of coordination fit this description well. Typically anything like a database is poorly suited to being distributed due to the need for overall consistency, which is very difficult to achieve across a distance.
Bitcoin is the opposite of a distributed system at the node level, every participant in the system is expected to repeat the process of validation in perfect accuracy with the hundreds of thousands, or millions of previous attempts at synchronization that have happened before it. As the number of nodes increases, there is no change in the amount of computation done in either direction.
Generally speaking anything claiming to improve efficiency by using a decentralized, or distributed network should be met with skepticism, simply because this is typically an uphill battle that is taken on for other reasons despite its inefficiency, not in an attempt to gain efficiency. To exemplify this, Bitcoin would be most efficient, most usable, and most reliable if it ran on a single server, but that would largely defeat the design brief of being trust-less.
answered 3 hours ago
AnonymousAnonymous
8,66911028
add a comment |
The only systems which benefit from being distributed are ones that display the property of being "embarrassingly parallel", or some approximation of it. Tasks which do not require a significant amount of data to be transmitted between operating systems, or those which don't require a significant amount of coordination fit this description well. Typically anything like a database is poorly suited to being distributed due to the need for overall consistency, which is very difficult to achieve across a distance.
Bitcoin is the opposite of a distributed system at the node level, every participant in the system is expected to repeat the process of validation in perfect accuracy with the hundreds of thousands, or millions of previous attempts at synchronization that have happened before it. As the number of nodes increases, there is no change in the amount of computation done in either direction.
Generally speaking anything claiming to improve efficiency by using a decentralized, or distributed network should be met with skepticism, simply because this is typically an uphill battle that is taken on for other reasons despite its inefficiency, not in an attempt to gain efficiency. To exemplify this, Bitcoin would be most efficient, most usable, and most reliable if it ran on a single server, but that would largely defeat the design brief of being trust-less.
answered 3 hours ago
AnonymousAnonymous
8,66911028
add a comment |
The only systems which benefit from being distributed are ones that display the property of being "embarrassingly parallel", or some approximation of it. Tasks which do not require a significant amount of data to be transmitted between operating systems, or those which don't require a significant amount of coordination fit this description well. Typically anything like a database is poorly suited to being distributed due to the need for overall consistency, which is very difficult to achieve across a distance.
Bitcoin is the opposite of a distributed system at the node level, every participant in the system is expected to repeat the process of validation in perfect accuracy with the hundreds of thousands, or millions of previous attempts at synchronization that have happened before it. As the number of nodes increases, there is no change in the amount of computation done in either direction.
Generally speaking anything claiming to improve efficiency by using a decentralized, or distributed network should be met with skepticism, simply because this is typically an uphill battle that is taken on for other reasons despite its inefficiency, not in an attempt to gain efficiency. To exemplify this, Bitcoin would be most efficient, most usable, and most reliable if it ran on a single server, but that would largely defeat the design brief of being trust-less.
answered 3 hours ago
AnonymousAnonymous
8,66911028
The only systems which benefit from being distributed are ones that display the property of being "embarrassingly parallel", or some approximation of it. Tasks which do not require a significant amount of data to be transmitted between operating systems, or those which don't require a significant amount of coordination fit this description well. Typically anything like a database is poorly suited to being distributed due to the need for overall consistency, which is very difficult to achieve across a distance.
Bitcoin is the opposite of a distributed system at the node level, every participant in the system is expected to repeat the process of validation in perfect accuracy with the hundreds of thousands, or millions of previous attempts at synchronization that have happened before it. As the number of nodes increases, there is no change in the amount of computation done in either direction.
Generally speaking anything claiming to improve efficiency by using a decentralized, or distributed network should be met with skepticism, simply because this is typically an uphill battle that is taken on for other reasons despite its inefficiency, not in an attempt to gain efficiency. To exemplify this, Bitcoin would be most efficient, most usable, and most reliable if it ran on a single server, but that would largely defeat the design brief of being trust-less.
answered 3 hours ago
AnonymousAnonymous
8,66911028
answered 3 hours ago
AnonymousAnonymous
8,66911028
answered 3 hours ago
AnonymousAnonymous
8,66911028
answered 3 hours ago
AnonymousAnonymous
8,66911028
8,66911028
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Bitcoin Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbitcoin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f83827%2fis-there-any-benefits-to-a-distributed-computing-architecture-outside-of-cryptoc%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
