Blockchain, hyperscale, and hyperconverge

I personally think blockchain technologies will significantly change the way data is processed.

I found this 2017 article about Microsoft and the Australian govt.…

Microsoft to build hyperscale cloud regions for Australian government, to unlock power of AI


We’re building cloud platforms close to where the data is. By building our cloud infrastructure in the data centre where most government data already lives we can really unlock some of that data and innovate on top of it,” the lead engineer for Microsoft Azure in Australia, James Kavanagh, told

Described as “nation building infrastructure” the initiative will allow government agencies to unlock the potential of innovative technologies such as machine learning, artificial intelligent bots and blockchain.

It could even usher in a new and more efficient tax system, Mr Kavanagh said.


So far, I’ve not found any info linking blockchain tech to hyper converged data.

But, the little that I understand either blockchain or hyper converged data… I tend to think they are technologies that would be synergistic.


“But, the little that I understand either blockchain or hyper converged data… I tend to think they are technologies that would be synergistic.”

Not even a little, sorry.

1 Like

I’m not sure they would be synergistic. Blockchain to be useful needs to be widely distributed across a lot of independent computers (eg: bitcoin miners) so no single computer (or datacenter or entity) has control.

Otherwise you might as well keep your record in a database somewhere.



Blockchain to be useful needs to be widely distributed across a lot of independent computers (eg: bitcoin miners) so no single computer (or datacenter or entity) has control.

The way I understand the distribution of the database, it is much wider than just the miners.

Blockchain technology?—?a very special kind of Distributed Database…

Denny Schlesinger

1 Like

As I understand it, blockchain TECHNOLOGIES are a ledger/record of data spread across many servers/nodes. Those can be on the internet, or can be within an intranet?

How are banks going to use blockchain technology if blockchain tech is only applicable to independent computers that are distributed across the internet?…
Five ways banks are using blockchain

I expect blockchain technologies to impact the way data is handled within and between many entities.

Will it be synergistic with hyperscale and hyperconverged data? I don’t know.

How can blockchain technologies be used in conjunction with hyperscale and hyperconverged data?

ralph :slight_smile:

Thanks Denny, yes posted too quickly, then thought I’d better check my understanding exactly. To be clear, the blockchain is copied to a bunch of computers (‘nodes’) that run the blockchain software. You have to install that on your computer and leave it running, and it receives updates and stores a copy of the whole blockchain.

From, “…before you begin, you’ll need to have around 8GB of memory and about 200GB of disk space available to store the Bitcoin blockchain plus additional database information…”

There’s actually not that many computers that are running bitcoin node software (approx 10k according to - no idea if that’s an authoritative source!)

But back to the question, it might be a failure of my imagination, but I can’t quite see how blockchain + hyperconvergence will be synergistic. Sure, you could run a blockchain in a datacentre, but… you could run any distributed database there.

Thanks for making me read up on this, I might be a little bit more knowledgeable than I was yesterday :slight_smile:


Blockchain was anticipated by a bit of sea lore: “Never got to sea with two clocks.”

If they don’t agree you don’t know what time it is. With three clocks if one does not agree with the other two it’s probably the one that’s malfunctioning. Blockchain extends this to thousands of clocks! The idea is that a hacker can’t hack them all.

The Captain


“hyperconverged data”

I think “hyperconverged infrastructure” is something that Gartner or Forrester coined for virtualization of all network, storage, and compute in an x64 blade chassis. What is “hyperconverged data”? I’ve never heard of it, and can’t find anything about it.

Blockchain is completely unrelated within the field of computing. It’s like asking if I-O is a positive for heart valves.

I know I’m both a wet blanket and a broken record on this, but “hyperconvergence” is an enterprise buzzword with no technical significance. You have a big computer, and you use the general purpose cpu capacity to virtualize networking, external storage, and computers on that one computer. In its most simple terms, your big computer pretends to be a SAN, switches, and a bunch of computers. It benefits service integrators (AYX, Apigee/GOOGL) and management tooling (AppDynamics/CSCO, NEWR, MULE) hurts hardware vendors (like ANET).

Blockchain means different things to different people. But at its most simple, you have a bunch of computers storing the same bunch of transactions in a way that it’s theoretically very difficult to alter the history of transactions. Bitcoin and related cryptocurrencies have created a mess by creating competition among the members of the bunch of computers by requiring them to race to compute a random number describing those transactions that is smaller than very small arbitary number. That’s why everyone has been buying GPUs (or more serious people buy ASICs or FPGAs) that can compute those random numbers extremely. If you define blockchain this way (requiring this type of “proof of work”) then it’s actually incompatible/antagonistic to hyperconvergence, because each virtual computer on a single hyperconverged chassis will not have sufficient dedicated compute at its disposal to be competitive in the distributed blockchain’s network (and there’s no way around that).

Take this as a gentle criticism of the board, but while the stock picking has been amazing lately and the performance speaks for itself, a lot of y’all do seem to not have as deep a technical understanding of the software and hardware stocks that you are heavily invested in as you probably should. This Bert guy on SA hasn’t worked in actual tech for almost 30 years. You fully buy into a lot of tech buzzwords and marketing in fields that have lots of promise but not a great track record of producing profits. I’m not including stuff like SHOP, WIX or SQ (at least pre-blockchain silliness SQ), which I would categorize much more as builders of better mouse-traps. Long term low yields have driven a lot of desperation for growth (and sales multiples proportional to that desperation), which has probably led to some people trying to take advantage of that desperation.

The playbook for this is pretty simple. Paint a huge TAM, sell $1 for $.90, talk about gross margins vs net margins, and point to a some date a few years out for profit break-even. Sometimes it’s legit and sometimes its not, and it’s pretty hard to know the difference. Even if it’s legit, sometimes the future net margins are subject to new competitors or technologies that are very difficult to predict at the time you are making your investment.

I am concerned for some of you that sound like you are all-in with family retirement money on this, and even some that seem to be using call options for leveraged long positions. Please be careful. I’m not saying to sell everything, but be prudent.


Thanks ajm. Your comments help me better understand some of the concepts.


1 Like