<p>By design, a blockchain is inherently resistant to modification of the data, so if you own or trust the nodes and you can modify that data anytime, so blockchain is ineffective. </p>

<p>If you were trying to use the blockchain technology just for storing data and for the highest availability, A regular database with some extra connected nodes would do the job. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-26T00:29:30.693Z
2018-02-26T00:29:30.693Z
Tailer
<p>1) In future, if you want to collaborate with some other organization then you will not have to trust their nodes.</p>

<p>2) If you want a database that deals with asset transfers and you want records to be immutable then you can use blockchain with optimization done for a known set of validators.</p>

<p>Trustlessness, Transparency and Anonymity/Pseudonymity are the properties Blockchain provides. If we don't need any then we should better use conventional databases.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-26T03:03:34.230Z
2018-02-26T03:03:34.230Z
Preet
<p>If we are designing a new project or application whatever it is, and you can trust all nodes, should we still consider blockchains in the architecture? </p>

<p>I saw this video of IBM and I was wondering why choosing blockchain as a solution</p>

<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdhpYQCWnCw&amp;lc=z23mitvo0ki5sgplm2hd0syvq1wb1yadphkj5vl0mj00u00c2.151904784581" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdhpYQCWnCw&amp;lc=z23mitvo0ki5sgplm2hd0syvq1wb1yadphkj5vl0mj00u00c2.151904784581</a></p>

<p>Wouldn't regular database solve the problem either way? </p>

<p>Could somebody explain?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-26T21:17:23.830Z
Yes. As a large service provider for assurances and banks, IBM precisely know the requirements. And if a customer wants to pay for a blockchain (for whatever reason), she should have it. Efficiency is then less a problem...
pebwindkraft
<blockchain><block><trust><smartcontracts>
Does blockchain have any value if you trust all nodes?
Victor Ferreira
# Does blockchain have any value if you trust all nodes?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-02-25)

If we are designing a new project or application whatever it is, and you can trust all nodes, should we still consider blockchains in the architecture?

I saw this video of IBM and I was wondering why choosing blockchain as a solution

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdhpYQCWnCw&lc=z23mitvo0ki5sgplm2hd0syvq1wb1yadphkj5vl0mj00u00c2.151904784581>

Wouldn't regular database solve the problem either way?

Could somebody explain?

**Tags:** blockchain, block, trust, smartcontracts

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Yes. As a large service provider for assurances and banks, IBM precisely know the requirements. And if a customer wants to pay for a blockchain (for whatever reason), she should have it. Efficiency is then less a problem...  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2018-02-26. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

By design, a blockchain is inherently resistant to modification of the data, so if you own or trust the nodes and you can modify that data anytime, so blockchain is ineffective.

If you were trying to use the blockchain technology just for storing data and for the highest availability, A regular database with some extra connected nodes would do the job.


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2018-02-26. Score: 0

1) In future, if you want to collaborate with some other organization then you will not have to trust their nodes.

2) If you want a database that deals with asset transfers and you want records to be immutable then you can use blockchain with optimization done for a known set of validators.

Trustlessness, Transparency and Anonymity/Pseudonymity are the properties Blockchain provides. If we don't need any then we should better use conventional databases.


---

