More than 99% of Blockchain Use Cases Are Bullshit

I’ve been following the blockchain ecosystem for some time now largely because it strikes me as yet another distributed database architecture, and I dream about those things.

For some time now, I’ve been wondering what to do after Tesora and blockchain was one of the things I’ve been looking at as a promising technology but I wasn’t seeing it. Of late I’ve been asking people who claim to be devotees at the altar of blockchain what they see as the killer app. All I hear are a large number of low rumbling sounds.

And then I saw this article by Jamie Burke of and I feel better that I’m not the only one who feels that this emperor is in need of a wardrobe.

Let’s be clear, I absolutely agree that bitcoin is a wonderful use of the blockchain technology and it solves the issue of trust very cleverly through proof of work. I think there is little dispute of elegance of this solution.

But once we go past bitcoin, the applications largely sound and feel like my stomach after eating gas station sushi; they sound horrible and throw me into convulsions of pain.

In his article, Jamie Burke talks of 3d printing based on a blockchain sharded CAD file. I definitely don’t see how blockchain can prevent the double-spend (i.e. buy one Yoda CAD file, print 10,000).

Most of the blockchain ideas I’m seeing are things which are attempting to piggy-back on the hot new buzzword and where blockchain is being used to refer to “secure and encrypted database”. After all, there’s a bunch of crypto involved and there’s data stored there right? so it must be a secure encrypted database.

To which I say, Bullshit!

P.S. Oh, the irony. This blog post references a blog post with a picture labeled “Burke’s Bullshit Cycle”, and the name of this blog is

Is this the end of NoSQL?

If it is, you read it here first!

I posted this article on my other (work related) blog.

I think the future for NoSQL isn’t as bright as a lot of pundits would have you believe. Yes, Yes, I know that MongoDB got a $1.2 billion valuation. Some other things to keep in mind.
  1. In the heyday of OODBMS, XML DB, and OLAP/MDX, there was similar hype about those technologies.
  2. Today, more and more NoSQL vendors are trying to build “SQL’isms” into their products. I often hear of people who want a product that has the scalability of NoSQL with transactions and a standard query language. Yes, we have that; it is called a horizontally scalable RDBMS!

Technologies come and technologies go but the underlying trends are worth understanding.

And the trends don’t favor NoSQL.

Ingesting data at over 1,000,000 rows/second with MySQL in Amazon’s cloud!

I just posted this article on my other (work related) blog.

Just to be clear, this was with standard MySQL, InnoDB, and with machines in Amazon’s cloud (AWS).

The data was inserted using standard SQL INSERT statements and can be queried immediately using SQL as well. All standard database stuff, no NoSQL tomfoolery going on.

This kind of high ingest rate has long been considered to be out of the reach of traditional databases; not at all true.

Why MongoDB and NoSQL make me want to scream

Recently I saw an article on the MongoHQ blog where they described a “slow query” and how to improve the performance.

The problem is this. I have a document with the following fields:

  • ID
  • submitdate
  • status
  • content

And the status can be something like ‘published’, ‘rejected’, ‘in progress’, ‘draft’ etc.,

I want to find all articles with some set of statuses and sorted by submit date.

Apparently the MongoDB solution to this problem (according to their own blog) is to:

  1. create a new field called ‘unpublished_submit_date’
  2. set that field to a ‘null’ value if the document is of an uninteresting status (i.e. published)
  3. set that field to the submitdate if it is an interesting status (i.e not published)
  4. then query on the single column unpublished_submit_date

Really? Really? You’ve got to be kidding me.

For more on this interesting exchange, a response from a MongoDB fanboy, and a follow-up, read my work blog at

The things people have to do to use NoSQL, boggles the mind!

Comparing parallel databases to sharding

I just posted an article comparing parallel databases to sharding on the ParElastic blog at

It was motivated by the fact that I’ve been asked a couple of times recently how the ParElastic architecture compares with sharding and it occurred to me this past weekend that

“Parallel Database” is a database architecture but sharding is an application architecture

Read the entire blog post here:

Scaling MongoDB: A year with MongoDB (Engineering at KiiP)

Here is the synopsis:

  • A year with MongoDB in production
  • Nine months spent in moving 95% of the data off MongoDB and onto PostgreSQL

Over the past 6 months, we’ve “scaled” MongoDB by moving data off of it.

Read the complete article here:


The MongoDB rant. Truth or hoax?

Two days ago, someone called ‘nomoremongo’ posted this on Y Combinator News.

Several people (me included) stumbled upon the article, read it, and took it at face value. It’s on the Internet, it’s got to be true, right?

No, seriously. I read it, and parts of it resonated with my understanding of how MongoDB works. I saw some of the “warnings” and they seemed real. I read this one (#7) and ironically, this was the one that convinced me that this was a true post.

**7. Things were shipped that should have never been shipped**

Things with known, embarrassing bugs that could cause data
problems were in "stable" releases--and often we weren't told
about these issues until after they bit us, and then only b/c
we had a super duper crazy platinum support contract with 10gen.

The response was to send up a hot patch and that they were
calling an RC internally, and then run that on our data.


Who but a naive engineer would feel this kind of self-righteous outrage 😉 I’ve shared this outrage at some time in my career, but then I also saw companies ship backup software (and have a party) when they knew that restore couldn’t possibly work (yes, a hot patch), software that could corrupt data in pretty main stream circumstances (yes, a hot patch before anyone installed stuff) etc.,

I spoke with a couple of people who know about MongoDB much better than I do and they all nodded about some of the things they read. The same article was also forwarded to me by someone who is clearly knowledgeable about MongoDB.

OK, truth has been established.

Then I saw this tweet.

Which was odd. Danny doesn’t usually swear (well, I’ve done things to him that have made him swear and a lot more but that was a long time ago). Right Danny?




Well, he had me at the “Start thinking for yourself”. But then he went off the meds, “MongoDB is the next MySQL”, really …


I think there’s a kernel of truth in the MongoDB rant. And it is certainly the case that a lot of startups are making dumb architectural decisions because someone told them that “MongoDB was web-scale”, or that “CAP Theorem told them that databases were dead”.

Was this a hoax? I don’t know. But it was certainly a reminder that all scams don’t originate in Nigeria, and don’t begin by telling me that I could make a couple of billion dollars if I just put up and couple of thousand.