• marcos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    10 months ago

    It makes no sense at all to distribute the backup generation step, and what do you do with your ledger once the retention period ends?

    There may be something you can do with a ledger in the “full - incremental - incremental - incremental …” cycle, but I can’t think of anything that’s actually useful.

    • jet@hackertalks.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      10 months ago

      Since we are designing the consensus algorithm we could remove data that is expired with some quorum vote, or indication from a key holder.

      • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        10 months ago

        or you could just not do that, and keep control of your own data. Why the hell would I want you to have a vote on whether I can delete my private data, which for some unfathomable reason, someone decided everyone should have a copy of?

        • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          In practice, data owners don’t have control of their data, sysadmins do. This gets complicated in multi-orgnizational data setups.

            • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              data owner was the key one here. If I run a storage service for example, I have control of the data, but you would see it as a breech of trust if I deleted your data, or gave access to someone else without your permission, because you in the scenario are the data owner.