21–30 of 107 posts
So what is going to replace miners? What incentive will people have to verify the integrity of this new blockchain? Is it still vulnerable to 51% attacks?
Does anyone have a link to a simplistic explanation of the block chain and why it seems to be so relevant?
blockchain aims to solve the "Two Generals' Problem"[0] short explanation in video[1] On what the article says, transactions not relying on the first bitcoin blockchain are more vulnerable to 51% attacks[2]. Though if that many big corps joined, they could achieve a well established, attack-proof consensus relatively fast - - this probably is bad news[3] for Bitcoins' blockchain "ambitions" which is considered by man…
PoW aims to solve that. Blockchains are just a way to store data in an agreed format with immutability and known ordering.
>On what the article says, transactions not relying on the first bitcoin blockchain are more vulnerable to 51% attacks
51% attacks are an issue for PoW systems. Private chains don't need PoW so aren't vulnerable to them.
It makes sense for the banks to do this, because they have different requirements. Bitcoin is great because it works with an unknown set of untrusted entities, and there's no counterparty risk because the ledger is the currency. Banks have a known set of semi-trusted entities, and want to track off-chain assets. They'll still have counterparty risk, but if they see a way to use chained blocks and something like Byzan…
The Bitcoin model is good at incentivizing actors to play nicely. Banks have no need to create this incentive, it's already in their interest. The Bitcoin mining system also solves another problem: how to evenly distribute new money in a fair way. Banks have no need for that either.
It makes sense for the banks to do this, because they have different requirements. Bitcoin is great because it works with an unknown set of untrusted entities, and there's no counterparty risk because the ledger is the currency. Banks have a known set of semi-trusted entities, and want to track off-chain assets. They'll still have counterparty risk, but if they see a way to use chained blocks and something like Byzan…
Yup. The actors don't even need to trust each other that much, because they each still need to use their public key to execute a transation. The level of trust is just that everyone will play nicely, such as not purposefully ignoring transactions. The Bitcoin model is good at incentivizing actors to play nicely. Banks have no need to create this incentive, it's already in their interest. The Bitcoin mining system als…
I was going to disagree with this, but I reconsidered my initial comment and will offer this modification:
"The Bitcoin mining system also solves another problem: how to evenly distribute new money in a provably fair way to those with the resources to participate."
Reading the participants' comments below the announcement, most of them speak of an open/distributed ledger, not Bitcoin's blockchain. So it seems they really are ditching the original blockchain. IBM intends to contribute tens of thousands of lines of its existing codebase and its corresponding intellectual property to this open source community. Digital Asset is contributing the Hyperledger mark, which will be used…
"enterprise grade code" What does that even mean? I read that and think to myself "cowboy generated spaghetti code with more bugs and more technical debt".
Java.
So what is going to replace miners? What incentive will people have to verify the integrity of this new blockchain? Is it still vulnerable to 51% attacks?
http://www.multichain.com/qa/13/multichain-blockchain-mining
"Ditching" Bitcoin? Wouldn't that imply that they had previously adopted Bitcoin to some meaningful extent? Bitcoin is merely proof of concept for the underlying technology. I expect that there will be many more offshoots in the future, beyond the pieces used by the existing banking system. But I won't really care about any of them, until one of them allows me to work, buy, and sell without being forced to trust any…
It makes sense for the banks to do this, because they have different requirements. Bitcoin is great because it works with an unknown set of untrusted entities, and there's no counterparty risk because the ledger is the currency. Banks have a known set of semi-trusted entities, and want to track off-chain assets. They'll still have counterparty risk, but if they see a way to use chained blocks and something like Byzan…
https://makebitcoingreatagain.wordpress.com/2015/11/26/creat...
The blockchain and SWIFT are very similar in spirit and in actuality, and it stands to reason that there is consensus that a private blockchain network would be more robust, fast, and secure than SWIFT.