Tuesday, 14 June 2016

BlockChains and CORA

Allow me to briefly illuminate the similarities, and differences between BlockChains and CORA.
BlockChains are incredibly resilient, and beyond the control of any “one”. This makes BlockChains ideal for online currency, which was the apparent rationale that drove its creation.

CORA on the other hand was originally developed with a single purpose – to provide unbreakable data security – which encryption alone cannot deliver. 

While CORA has surprised us at CORAcsi.com with additional applications, such as securing one’s online, digital footprint, this is a byproduct of its primary mandate – security.

Hence I targeted a “distributed methodology”, but more than “just a distributed methodology”. I insisted upon the following characteristics:

Points B and D above are pivotal to understanding the difference between BlockChains and CORA as a means of securing data and protecting one's online digital footprint.

For online currency, I personally cannot imagine a better technology than BlockChains.
decentralized, peer-to-peer
The BlockChain is a decentralized implementation. Decentralized, peer-to-peer implementations have been around for years - "bitTorrents" that utilize many duplicates: seeds (files) and catalogs (routing tables).
The design of the BlockChain is beautiful; it is persistent, independent and versatile.

Regarding security, decentralized peer-to-peer systems violate requirement “B” above, by removing the requirements that:
  1. The data can be quickly and permanently “shut down”.
  2. The fragments are highly controlled and secured by professionals (not seeded to unknown computes, perhaps even home computers).

CORA must remain “centralized” so that it can be controlled and if necessary, shut down to prevent unauthorized individuals, teams, companies, or countries from viewing data that belongs to another. Moreover, CORA will not place packages (seeds) in multiple locations, nor on personal computers.
As stated in my earlier blog, executables in a BlockChain should make the global community extremely uncomfortable!

Executables violate requirement “D”, namely that each fragment must be inactive. Perhaps sterile is a better word! 
CORA is committed to using packages that inactive and can be shut down permanently if required.

1 comment:

  1. http://goo.gl/hrpIrV
    pcmag reports on a theft of $50 million of Ether (BlockChain) alternative to BitCoin. Without a means to shut this down, even though it is known, they cannot stop the theft.