Building a tiny blockchain
medium.com
Building a tiny blockchain
1–10 of 60 posts
Re: Building a tiny blockchain
#2So ah... where's the part where you implement a working blockchain, again? There's no proof-of-work, consensus logic, currency logic, accounting logic, peer-to-peer networking code, etc.
Instead this is just a list of hashed-linked documents... Not that much different from a Git repo or a basic file system with integrity checks. Hashing != blockchains.
Re: Building a tiny blockchain
#3So ah... where's the part where you implement a working blockchain, again? There's no proof-of-work, consensus logic, currency logic, accounting logic, peer-to-peer networking code, etc. Instead this is just a list of hashed-linked documents... Not that much different from a Git repo or a basic file system with integrity checks. Hashing != blockchains.
What? A blockchain isn’t a distributed ledger. A blockchain IS a chain of linked documents - whereas these documents are usually hash trees including the “transactions” per block. They ensure integrity by hashing the previous blocks. The proof of work is just a way to ensure a self regulating growth of virtual currencies and to prevent double spending.
Re: Building a tiny blockchain
#4So ah... where's the part where you implement a working blockchain, again? There's no proof-of-work, consensus logic, currency logic, accounting logic, peer-to-peer networking code, etc. Instead this is just a list of hashed-linked documents... Not that much different from a Git repo or a basic file system with integrity checks. Hashing != blockchains.
What? A blockchain isn’t a distributed ledger. A blockchain IS a chain of linked documents - whereas these documents are usually hash trees including the “transactions” per block. They ensure integrity by hashing the previous blocks. The proof of work is just a way to ensure a self regulating growth of virtual currencies and to prevent double spending.
It's also missing the logic to choose the best tip, i.e. the logic that decides which fork is the one to follow.
Re: Building a tiny blockchain
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? A blockchain isn’t a distributed ledger. A blockchain IS a chain of linked documents - whereas these documents are usually hash trees including the “transactions” per block. They ensure integrity by hashing the previous blocks. The proof of work is just a way to ensure a self regulating growth of virtual currencies and to prevent double spending.
It's also missing the logic to choose the best tip, i.e. the logic that decides which fork is the one to follow.
Again, it’s not a distributed ledger. There’s no “fork” unless you want your data structure to do so.
Re: Building a tiny blockchain
#6Clearly there's an association to Bitcoin and there are certain expectations by people when mentioning blockchain.
It's justified since blockchain on its own is a relatively simple data structure which on itself is not that significant. It's the composition of all the elements that have given the value and recognition to this technology.
Re: Building a tiny blockchain
#7This worries me. Bitcoin solved the double spend problem by using the LCR with PoW. That is the novel aspect which allowed cryptocurrencies to come into existence.
If you remove the LCR and PoW, all you are left with is a toy example which cannot work in practice.
What is needed is education about censensus design and bitcoin's implementation of the solution, rather than a 'how to guide' for building a basic linked list under the guise of 'blockchain'.
Cheers, Paul.
Re: Building a tiny blockchain
#8So ah... where's the part where you implement a working blockchain, again? There's no proof-of-work, consensus logic, currency logic, accounting logic, peer-to-peer networking code, etc. Instead this is just a list of hashed-linked documents... Not that much different from a Git repo or a basic file system with integrity checks. Hashing != blockchains.
What? A blockchain isn’t a distributed ledger. A blockchain IS a chain of linked documents - whereas these documents are usually hash trees including the “transactions” per block. They ensure integrity by hashing the previous blocks. The proof of work is just a way to ensure a self regulating growth of virtual currencies and to prevent double spending.
>A blockchain isn’t a distributed ledger. A blockchain IS a chain of linked documents
You are interpreting "blockchain" to be constrained to a "chain of hashes". That is a valid interpretation.
The parent (Uptrenda) is interpreting "blockchain" as a umbrella label for "distributed ledger". This wider definition is also a valid interpretation and this language phenomenon is called "synecdoche"[1].
To point back to the actual article, the author (Gerald Nash) is using "blockchain" in both meanings. On the one hand, he talks about the wider scope of distributed currency... but on the other hand, his Python example is constrained to a "chain of hashes". Since Mr Nash is mentioning the Satoshi bitcoin whitepaper when talking about "blockchain" (the wider meaning), Uptrenda's criticism is reasonable because the most interesting part of distributed-blockchain is the invention of incentives (mining rewards) and social agreement on acceptable hashes (e.g. how many 0000s are counted, which chain is chosen, etc).
As other distributed projects such as IPFS/Diaspora/Sandstorm/etc show, finding the right combination of incentives to create social buy-in and sustainability is the hard part. The hashes is the easy part.
Re: Building a tiny blockchain
#9So ah... where's the part where you implement a working blockchain, again? There's no proof-of-work, consensus logic, currency logic, accounting logic, peer-to-peer networking code, etc. Instead this is just a list of hashed-linked documents... Not that much different from a Git repo or a basic file system with integrity checks. Hashing != blockchains.
What? A blockchain isn’t a distributed ledger. A blockchain IS a chain of linked documents - whereas these documents are usually hash trees including the “transactions” per block. They ensure integrity by hashing the previous blocks. The proof of work is just a way to ensure a self regulating growth of virtual currencies and to prevent double spending.
This is a really twisted take on blockchains. The whole point behind a blockchain is that cryptoeconomic incentives serve as an additional security function which is better than relying on generosity alone to contribute hashing power. So while it is true that a blockchain can exist without any kind of currency - the real genius behind blockchains is how they are designed as a new kind of corporation - one which requires no trust to pay users to create a single, shared view of an ordered list of events.
It's kind of like how in modern cryptography most of our algorithms aren't bullet proof. Cryptographers aren't saying that an algorithm can't be broken, but that it requires so much computational resources to do so that its simply improbable. We can say that blockchains also include this idea but they add the economic aspect; Now it isn't just improbable to break an algorithm (with universe sized computers) -- its also improbably (and irrationally) expensive.
Your other point is that a blockchain is simply a linked chain of documents. This is incorrect. The whole point behind a blockchain is that it serves as a way to get people to agree on an ordered list of events. The problem was never being able to form that list (anyone can hash a list of documents, its basic applied crypto.) It was getting a group of strangers to agree on a single result under highly adversarial conditions.
See also: http://unenumerated.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/money-blockchain...
Re: Building a tiny blockchain
#10This worries me. Bitcoin solved the double spend problem by using the LCR with PoW. That is the novel aspect which allowed cryptocurrencies to come into existence. If you remove the LCR and PoW, all you are left with is a toy example which cannot work in practice. What is needed is education about censensus design and bitcoin's implementation of the solution, rather than a 'how to guide' for building a basic linked l…
What does LCR stand for? Thank you