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

41–50 of 60 posts

Re: Building a tiny blockchain

#41

Post by smokeyj »

KenanSulayman wrote: post #12
jasode wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

That argument is not exactly valid, because the concept of a block chain has been described a long time before it was used in "virtual currencies." [1] "Block chains" in modern times are very helpful in handling transactions in databases by replacing things like CAS-Numbers [2] with hashes. The hash of the previous block effectively becomes the CAS-Number, with the feature of staying persistent and verifiable. CAS ex…

> That argument is not exactly valid, because the concept of a block chain has been described a long time before it was used in "virtual currencies."

The idea of a "block chain" had a name back then and it still has a name now. No software developer would confuse a hash list with the underpinnings of a virtual currency unless:

A) You're writing a title for an article and want more clicks

B) You're a banking institution that wants to seem "hip"

C) You're working on a centralized database but really need funding so you throw in the word "blockchain"

D) You're a reporter and you have no clue what you're talking about

Show me anyone referring to a "block chain" in a non virtual currency context that doesn't fall into the above categories and I'll reconsider.

Re: Building a tiny blockchain

#42

Post by digitalronin »

tinkerrr wrote: post #17
jmcmichael wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Longest Chain Rule, that the network honors the longest chain as the correct chain.

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.

Could you explain the difference? Isn't the longest chain the one with the most cumulative proof of work?

Re: Building a tiny blockchain

#43

Post by cableshaft »

wildbunny wrote: post #36
dguaraglia wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For sure. But those people probably don't bother trying to make their own implementation of the protocol. The code is out there for them to just go 'copy+paste, change a few config settings, done'. They're essentially the script kiddies of the cryptocurrency world.

But me, I'm not planning on starting a coin, although I'm pretty interested in the tech behind it, albeit not enough to deep dive into the white papers and code, at least not yet. So I thought this was a nice byte-size chunk and was informative.

Re: Building a tiny blockchain

#44

Post by cableshaft »

todd_wanna_code wrote: post #38
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?

I haven't encountered any myself, no. But I haven't really been looking either.

Re: Building a tiny blockchain

#45

Post by ue_ »

jmcmichael wrote: post #15
ionwake wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does LCR stand for? Thank you

Longest Chain Rule, that the network honors the longest chain as the correct chain.

Why would that make it more secure? Couldn't I simply make a lot of fraudelent transactions and append them, having a long chain, but a false one?

Re: Building a tiny blockchain

#46

Post by gtfierro »

ue_ wrote: post #45
jmcmichael wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Longest Chain Rule, that the network honors the longest chain as the correct chain.

Why would that make it more secure? Couldn't I simply make a lot of fraudelent transactions and append them, having a long chain, but a false one?

You could, but you'd be competing with everyone else that's also making transactions so you'd need an incredible amount of computational power to outstrip that.

Re: Building a tiny blockchain

#47

Post by wildbunny »

cableshaft wrote: post #43
wildbunny wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For sure. But those people probably don't bother trying to make their own implementation of the protocol. The code is out there for them to just go 'copy+paste, change a few config settings, done'. They're essentially the script kiddies of the cryptocurrency world. But me, I'm not planning on starting a coin, although I'm pretty interested in the tech behind it, albeit not enough to deep dive into the white papers an…

That's fair enough.

Re: Building a tiny blockchain

#48

Post by hudon »

digitalronin wrote: post #42
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.

Could you explain the difference? Isn't the longest chain the one with the most cumulative proof of work?

Every block hash has a target it is trying to be under. For example, if the target is "0000008dab3", then when you are hashing your block, you need to come up with a hash that is below that number. When the network's hash rate goes up, people are producing hashes quicker so a hash is found below that target well below 10 minutes (what the network tries to average around). If hashes are found in less than 10 minutes for too long, then the target gets lowered even further, say to "00000000ab3" to require everyone to produce more hashes so it takes longer.

Now to actually answer your question: if you take 2 bitcoin blockchains that stem from the same origin block, but blockchainA has 20 blocks with a very easy target "fffffffdab3" and blockchainB has 1 block with a very difficult target "00000000003", then blockchainB has actually done more work than blockchainA, even though it has less blocks (it is "shorter"). So blockchainB has the most cumulative proof of work.

Re: Building a tiny blockchain

#50

Post by fortenforge »

digitalronin wrote: post #42
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.

Could you explain the difference? Isn't the longest chain the one with the most cumulative proof of work?

Because the "difficulty" rate (essentially the number of leading 0's needed for the proof of work) can change dynamically, the longest chain is not always the chain with the most work.
Post reply on HN