0

I'm a researcher looking into solving the trust issue among telecommunication operators when they are sharing infrastructure resources. Know I'm focusing on finding the right Hyperledger platform to achieve this trust. I have been playing around with Hyperledger Fabric and already implemented it locally. But the idea of the central ordering service that still keeps us vulnerable to trusting one of the organizations or a third party, does not fit well with my story.

The question is what are the differences between the Hyperledger frameworks, and if any of them provides a totally decentralized trust (similar to Etherium or Bitcoin blockchains)?

Dan Anderson
  • 2,265
  • 1
  • 9
  • 20
Nima Afraz
  • 36
  • 5
  • possible starting point for hyperledger blockchains pseudo comparison https://jaxenter.com/hyperledger-iroha-interview-takemiya-149724.html. Indy and Burrow can't be compared to Fabric/Sawtooth/Iroha. – Paolo Sep 22 '18 at 08:20

1 Answers1

1

The Hyperledger blockchain technologies are separate implementations. But they are all implement private blockchains, intended for private use, usually in consortiums or other groups that need to share information. They are all Apache 2 licensed.

Hyperledger Sawtooth does not have a centralized ordering service. Each node in a Sawtooth network is a equal peer and can accept transactions and propose blocks to add to the network's blockchain.

Dan Anderson
  • 2,265
  • 1
  • 9
  • 20