Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Building a tiny blockchain

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 60 posts

Re: Building a tiny blockchain

#31

Post by chrisallick »

KenanSulayman wrote: post #29
chrisallick wrote: post #27

I wanted to try re-writing in Ruby to warm up today. Can someone confirm this is correct? https://gist.github.com/chrisallick/cb196b13555c86f9193f3ec4...

Looks good to me. You might want to keep track of the blocks as you create them, or you will find it hard to verify the integrity of a block. (Do I know the hash of the previous block? Do I know about the next block, if it is not the last block?)

yeah im not sure how deep i want to go. i already have a side self-education project but i keep getting sucked into blockchain stuff and find myself reading white papers. i don't know... seems like it could become an obsession.

the thing i really want to try making is take a sinatra/redis/crud app and rebuild the database as a distributed database on a blockchain. or at least i think thats what i want to do.

Re: Building a tiny blockchain

#32

Post by joepie91_ »

ivanbakel wrote: post #21
Uptrenda wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 requi…

> 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. This has nothing to do with blockchains. What you're describing is proof of work with a payout system, and you could implement that without a blockchain at all. >So while it is true that a blockchain can exist without any kind of…

> This was, in fact, exclusively the case before the first cryptocurrencies - blockchains are data structures, not a concept exclusive to currency.

What are you talking about? The term "blockchain" didn't even exist before Bitcoin. This seems like a case of trying to rewrite history...

Re: Building a tiny blockchain

#33

Post by joepie91_ »

kbody wrote: post #6

Clearly 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.

Same answer here: the term "blockchain" didn't exist before Bitcoin. It has a very specific meaning involving a particular kind of distributed ledger.

Re: Building a tiny blockchain

#35

Post by ankushnarula »

wildbunny wrote: post #7

This 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…

Correct me if I'm wrong but the article is about elucidating the structure of a blockchain database - not a practical secure cryptocurrency.

Re: Building a tiny blockchain

#36

Post by wildbunny »

dguaraglia wrote: post #34
wildbunny wrote: post #30

When you're talking about people's money, just following tutorials and piecing something together does not cut it.

I don't think anyone is suggesting taking this and publishing as the latest niche 'WhateverCoin'.

Indeed. But there is a lot of talk about bitcoin and blockchain in general lately, and a lot of existing cryptocurrencies which are unworkable, created by people who want to get rich quick.

Re: Building a tiny blockchain

#37

Post by wildbunny »

ankushnarula wrote: post #35
wildbunny wrote: post #7

This 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…

Correct me if I'm wrong but the article is about elucidating the structure of a blockchain database - not a practical secure cryptocurrency.

You are correct. However, this field is so new and so potentially disruptive that there are a lot of so called 'blockchain developers' inventing new cryptocurrecies which are unworkable, or essentially no different to VISA in terms of trust, who are convincing unwitting investors to part with large sums of cash because they don't understand the basics of what a cryptocurrency is. We don't need more of them. We need understanding.

Re: Building a tiny blockchain

#38

Post by todd_wanna_code »

cableshaft wrote: post #28

Regardless of the semantic discussion on what exactly a 'blockchain' is and whether or not this qualifies, I found the article interesting by taking a tiny piece of the whole monster and demystifying it a bit. I don't see this any differently than a tutorial that makes a static image move around the screen with key presses. Is it a full game? Not at all. But can it teach you how to build a tiny piece of it, and you c…

Hey you got some link for other tutorials to go from here?

Re: Building a tiny blockchain

#40

Post by nicky0 »

test6554 wrote: post #25
tinkerrr wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin has moved away from the Longest Chain Rule to the blockchain with the most cumulative Proof of Work as what the nodes recognize as valid blockchain.

I hear a lot about hash rates. How are aggregate hash rates confirmed/reported? Does a miner submit every single attempted hash to the network as a potential solution or do miners self-report their total hash rates?

It is not necessary for miners to report any stats. Hash rate is simply inferred from the average time taken to find a block, multiplied by the current difficulty.
Post reply on HN