The key difference is that NoSQL was being developed and used to solve specific issues with using traditional databases. They were implementations of solutions to problems. Blockchain is a solution in search of problems.<p>By all means I support the research and development of blockchain technologies, but most applications are impractical thus far. The backlash against blockchain is a natural levelling mechanism combating the hyping and over-application of as yet inappropriate tech. As those in the know we should aim for the correct balance rather than blindly support it in hopes of future possible benefits. But as always, be informed and follow what you believe.
Please don't go by the title. It is tongue in cheek but on reading the article will actually clear author's position. He is a supporter/worked on both technologies.<p>Author's position is that "haters" brought NoSQL down. (Side note - With this usage of "haters" I wonder if "critic" will ever be seen outside a dictionary).And same is happening with Blockchain. Too many critics. NoSQL proponents should help Blockchain because of the shared camaraderie of being a technology which were/are criticized heavily.<p>The main point of the article, like most in this space, is to re-define the word blockchain. What exactly is it? As per author it is byzantine fault tolerant state machine replication or BFTSMR. But there is not much to be said aside from the fact that "blockchain shouldn't be written off, just yet".<p>While agree on not writing off blockchain yet, I can't help but ask if blockchain solved BFTSMR - it happened over 9 years ago. And people/companies dint jump in until 1-2 years ago. So most of these people/companies are just following the hype train.
The big difference is that NoSQL (and XMl, and...) were always primarily <i>developer</i> tools and the hype/investment was always scoped more-or-less to that environment.<p>My parents never asked me about NoSQL, and celebrities didn't sell/promote IPOs for companies built around XML processing libraries...<p>The author hits on this in the end:<p><i>> There are some very real things to worry about in association with Blockchain. Cryptocurrencies are not investment strategies, and are not going to have any of the promised power-distribution and -equalization effects they peddle while their value and cost fluctuate so wildly.</i><p>Companies and VCs investing in NoSQL databases <i>really were</i> trying to creating business around <i>developer tooling</i>. But most blockchain companies aren't selling themselves as developer tooling companies. The rest of the comparison seems less important than that distinction.
The missing ingredient in the first wave of NoSQL was ACID transactions. (Disclosure, I was an early contributor to Apache CouchDB and Couchbase Mobile).<p>Now that we have global ACID transaction algorithms like Google Spanner's and FaunaDB's (my current employer), mission critical apps are moving to NoSQL because multi-region consistency is safer and easier to deal with than RDBMS scale out. With ACID transactions, temporal storage, and object-level security, these distributed databases can beat blockchain at its own game by becoming a scalable runtime for smart contract applications, with all of the safety but with the flexibility of a database.
nosql is a databse system, blockchain mission is to enable trustless immutable unstoppable appications and miney transmission worldwide to change society. comparing apples with hot dogs here