Marx thought out loud, "20 things made possible with blockchains!"
A record hasn't been updated for 7 months, and your schema migrations codebase have long been forgotten with the early onset retirement syndrome of your senior staff. You realized something — you have a database of databases and you didn't even know it.
Remember how you'd have seven different browsers installed on your phone at once time? Or maybe you'd love it if you could automagically restrict the number of tabs your browser allows. Why isn't that easy? I have to go where — is that protocol accessible over the internet? What? That's what hacking is?
Who knows what goes through one's mind when they get Marx's most often cited but most widely misunderstood echo, "from those according to their ability, …" Will this be a close-reading of the conceptual relations and desiderata presupposed by crypto-Marxism? Hardly. What can we take away from such a brief mention? That the best word we've got for "accordance" as used by Marx, and what that looks like at its full realization in technological conceptuation is something called a "blockchain." What problem is it solving? The problem of capital for capital's sake, or derivatively: databases for databases sake.
What does it mean to say "it's just a database"? Is this the Arbeit macht frei of our time? We've heard of Bob, who is versatile and deft with Number 2 Pencil technology, and we know by xkcd's standard that the cloud has a leash somewheres, and that Kittler is the Hitler of software, while Brian Cantwell Smith thinks the theory of computer science is invariably in theory no more than the smallest possible theory being computed as we speak in some garage somewhere in Kentucky. It's just a database — yes, well one that must be managed, measured, migrated, and so on, in accordance with other databases:
From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
Marx was a database engineer all along! But was he a blockchain database engineer?
Just what do you mean blockchain database? I thought we just established that a blockchain is (just) a database.
One thing: just-so stories are boring. Why should boring theories about information be anymore true that exciting and surprising theories about information? Some things may just be ontologically speaking other things, but such phrases really have no business along de te or de dicto talk exchanges. Why should they when they exchange no semaphoric shape? If I tell you the cat is on the mat, my sentence has also given you some notion of the shape of the world. There are flat things. There are furry things. There are a number of different reasons why these things are attractive to such and such other things on account of their accordance in property congruence and relationality, without decisional measures or criteria to be considered. A blockchain database in a certain sense is a decisional property of a database for which its name itself is on record for accordance with other natural kinds of databases. A blockchain database is not a database for which full resolution of relationality is importance. We're not going to store RSS feeds in our blockchain database, because the trust of property congruence is in-formed by the syntax within the content itself. Its form is heavy: users might use full posts in feeds, or they might include arbitrary codestuffs like injection attempts. It's easier to sanitize and validate ACID-compliant schemas than HTML-ish stuff, stuff that invites almost the whole of the historicity of attack vectors every attempted by almost anyone in the history of XSS and HTTP injections, etc. But then we invite the problem of normalizing new properties, earning the right to adoption for protocols, governance, paradoxical and para-consistent smart contracts, the myth of the universal time sequence, etc.
Anyway: Alan Kay said something about message passing.
Can HTML become "object-oriented"? What does that mean? Should everything become an AngularJS directive? Isn't Web Components already doing that? Well, this depends on the socket integration — why would HTML on the open web every want to talk to HTML on the dark web? What's the weight of that message's gravitational signature? If information wants to be free, why would a solvency layer encoded in one document be outside of the optics of a solvency layer encoded in some other document on a different network protocol? Surely databases are involved but is a blockchain database the ticket, or is explaining away such databases as just database in itself the "attitude" adjustment that the world must ideologically arrest at once in order to subtend the new agorization of the rights of the future?
HTML is already a smart contracting language. It is the lingua franca of the web; so why should we need anything more than the natural language of the web to draft smart contracts in the first place? And then of course we can render them server-side using headless browsers. In fact, your clients can just draft their Smart Markup(tm) to-day in whatever doctype they choose. You should be able to follow along, right? Now that word doc becomes tex which then becomes markup, and voilà! with server-side rendering, you've just translated their business requirement into a flexible smart contract with schema in-formed by HTML5 semantics and potentially schema.org and various other public domain namespaces.
Of course, recall Bob. We used to draw out our grid systems and do the math on paper before we chose 960gs or Bootstrap or what have you. Do the math. Shut up and compute. Well, humans have always been the computers. But was Marx a computer? Was Marx a database engineer?