Top 4 Reasons That Blockchain Technology is Not Accepted by Peers?

Blockchain technology has successfully been able to identify the risky areas through which the top-notch business professionals or the accounting enthusiasts may fulfil the requirements – with the enhanced cloud-security and the capacity embedded into the networks withholding the frameworks of blockchain. 

Furthermore, the ones who have been primarily renowned in the existing markets as the QuickBooks Hosting Providers must also accept the fact that blockchain technology has successfully been able to change the dynamics of the sectors like agriculture, supply chain, healthcare, construction, or transportation. 

But still, there are some enthusiasts or the small-level authorities who have raised red flags towards blockchain technology. This is because there are some of the demerits which are depicted by this technology or the knowledge-bases relying upon the same. To know such reasons, one can assertively take a look at the listed-below reasons. 

Those four reasons due to which the existing peers aren’t supporting the blockchains

Whether it is about propagating the rewards from one blockchain to the other or compiling the knowledge-bases through which the award-winning solutions may successfully be proposed by the blockchain software – keeping in minds the environmental health and the issues that may deteriorate the same, the agencies or the bigger enterprises may support the – blockchain frameworks.

But at the same time, they must understand thoroughly these reasons through which the blockchains aren’t allowing those enterprises or the tech-giants to capture the profit-margins at the required intervals.

#Reason Number One – Blockchains are using the energy-sources excessively

Competing miners and giant mining farms have to exhaust the non-proportionate amount(s) of electricity – while comparing the outcomes after creating the successive blocks. In a world – comprising of QuickBooks Cloud users – where the energy generation-procedures are giving rise to the climate causes, the processing of the transactions over the blockchain networks does not – really -make much of- sense. Why should Bitcoin alone use the annual energy resources of Switzerland?

This is ironic to say that Bitcoin processing requires the annual-energy resources of Switzerland. If in case one-by-thousandth of the total miners could exist, then, one-thousandth of the electric power could easily be consumed, then only, the Bitcoin(s) would become as good – as it – the Bitcoin – is now. 

Still, the bitcoin networks may produce a block – within 10 minutes and process the same number of transactions while operating at the required velocities. Therefore, this sort-of-energy consumption in the blockchain processing i.e. mining has now become an issue due to which the blockchains are likely to not-appear in the future timings.

Undoubtedly, such sort of energy-usage must be marked as an existential issue for the large-sized or mid-level enterprises – who will give considerations to this blockchain technology. It is not easy to understand the energy-chains and associated aspects. What is essential is that if we are devoted to the planets’ safety.

#Reason Number Two – Blockchain is not a broader-distributed computing system

Many of the prime-time experts have constantly been focusing on the fact that the blockchains are like some sort(s) of distributed-computers; that may unhesitatingly perform the distributed computations. We might also nod our heads onto the fact that the nodes across the blockchain’s world will gather something bigger- slowly and steadily. 

Rather, the above statement is partially correct because all those nodes compulsively maintaining the blockchains will do the same thing(s) – exactly. Additionally, the millions of computers supporting the specifications of Qb Hosting and the blockchain frameworks will verify the similar transactions according to the rules and the performed operations – identically.

Later, they may record those onto the blockchain servers – if in case they were fortunate to all these with the lesser complications. Finally, the feeds may be stored and reviewed at the server’s history, which will be the same for all – many a time(s).

Moreover, there is neither paralleling, nor mutual assistance detected synergetically. What was spotted was the instantaneous, million-folded-duplication.

Merely, blockchains are totally the opposite of the efficient systems therefore it is not all at depicting distributed computer system beneficiaries in the real-times.

#Reason Number Three – Mining isn’t at all bound to network security

Many of the blockchain and the Bitcoin networks – especially – argue the fact that the miners may maintain the stability and the associated security of the interoperation[al] blockchain models. If the miners are enough in numbers,  this will surely can’t be false.

On the contrary, the issue is that the miners – including the ones well-versed with the security of Qb Cloud – may combine effortlessly at the required times. If they do so, they would assemble with more than fifty-percentage of mining-computational powers. Even they may alter – or re-write – the blockchain records. If all this is made possible, the data-security primarily relying on the cloud-technology will disappear.

Indistinguishably, the – [counter] argument is that the miners are not able to extract the incentives economically so that they may shoot themselves onto their economic feet(s). Also, the situation delivers the required outcomes when the incentives are sufficiently distributed among peers.

#Reason Number Four – Scalability has always been the weakness for the blockchain frameworks

Bitcoin – the most successful blockchain’s implementations – has been accepted by the larger numbers of users. Yet only a few from every lakhs of people on the planet Earth may use the same. If the speed of the processing of the transactions by the bitcoin networks is known, one may not expect to visualize the increased number of active users – with much practicality.

Now if we consider the example of a Visa company,  the employees may process trillions of transactions at every second(s) for the customers relying whole-heartedly upon the company. Though this seems expensive, yet it can potentially deliver the increased throughput at peculiar instances. When compared with QuickBooks Remote Desktop Services, they may seem more scalable than the available bitcoin, ripple, or the existing blockchains.

Should the peers boycott the applications supporting the blockchain technology?

Though there are innovative methodologies proposed by the blockchain frameworks or the crypto-currencies like Bitcoin, ethereum, ripple, etc, yet the reasons which are listed-above are forcing the peers not to encompass their trust(s) onto the blockchains for their futuristic events. 

Additionally, the ones still doubting the potential of Cloud QuickBooks hosting must not hesitate in crying onto the blockchain disadvantages that may harm the enthusiasm of the tech-enthusiasts or the college students planning to strengthen the pillars of their businesses onto the blockchain networks and the computational strategies offered by them in the real-times.

Conclusively, it is not mandatory to completely boycott the technology and the applications relying upon its fundamentals. Rather, the peers might overlook the complex frameworks proposed by this technology as they might demand more resources and the costs that may assertively invite the drawbacks listed in the above paragraph.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top