In our last two blog posts, we covered the differences between public, private, permissioned, permissionless, and hybrid blockchains and explored how they might be implemented in the enterprise space. We also established criteria to analyze different blockchain solutions in a clear and meaningful way. We would now like to employ those criteria to demonstrate how our own blockchain platform can offer competitive and appealing business solutions as the leading IBM blockchain competitor.
IBM powers its blockchain platform with HyperLedger Fabric, one of the open source blockchain frameworks hosted by the HyperLedger project. Fabric supports smart contracts across multiple programming languages and does not require a cryptocurrency to compute consensus. Fabric also offers membership services for private and permissioned transactions. This is important for businesses that handle proprietary and/or sensitive data.
Fabric is appealing for many enterprise applications. In the past, we have covered use cases from supply chain management and auditing to intrusion detection and municipal operations. However, we argue that the structure and design of IBM’s blockchain platform is seriously problematic from both a trust and autonomy standpoint.
According to their white paper, IBM is offering a private-permissioned blockchain integrated with their cloud platform and centralized architecture. While private-permissioned blockchains boast privacy and scaling, they also oppose transparency and create a single point of dependence. Consumers must place an enormous amount of trust and power in IBM. Even then, there is no guarantee that the data history IBM creates will be immutable because they handle transaction processing behind closed doors. You may control permissions at the outset, but you must always rely on IBM as a middle man, putting your data at risk. For example, IBM’s execute-order-validate scheme records transactions before consensus and validation, potentially allowing for the malicious manipulation of your data.
Additionally, IBM’s platform fundamentally opposes the premise of blockchain. Blockchain technology was created to provide for independently-verifiable data and to operate in a trustless, peer-to-peer environment. IBM requires you to buy in to their private ecosystem to participate in a process that they control, guaranteeing neither. As far as trust is concerned, using IBM’s blockchain platform is no better than paying for a public database.
ULedger, the Leading IBM Blockchain Competitor:
Neither private-permissioned nor public-permissionless blockchains are appropriate for the enterprise.
Instead, ULedger offers a hybrid solution with the best attributes from both private-permissioned and public-permissionless blockchains. Unlike IBM, ULedger does not control transaction processing. ULedger uses strict and distributed consensus mechanisms to ensure that each transaction is validated before it is recorded. This is the only way to ensure an immutable data history and the independent verification of transactions.
Additionally, instead of relying on a single chain, ULedger offers multiple chains, which means that you can keep your data organized and truly private with no need to manage membership. Data placed into your blockchain is NEVER shared with the network. Instead, we share a secure, cryptographic hash so the network may corroborate your data. ULedger is also stateless. No single network node holds a complete data history, providing extra redundancy.
- ULedger reduces transaction, compliance, and cyber costs.
- Easy integration with a RESTful API.
- True data privacy.
- Infinitely scalable with massive throughout.