51–60 of 104 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a private blockchain forks how do you decide which one was the cheaters branch and which one legit?
The legit branch is signed/vouched by at least (N/2)+1 parties and the cheating branch has less than (N/2)-1.
I'm all for deflating blockchain hype, but I found the overall tone of the article pretty disagreeable, and more importantly, wholly missing the point. "In other words, the only thing previously stopping the standardization of reconciliation processes was the unwillingness of financial institutions to collaborate." No, actually, the one thing the blockchain provides, which was literally unsolved before pre-Nakamoto,…
> No, actually, the one thing the blockchain provides, which was literally unsolved before pre-Nakamoto, was a working implementation of "trustless" consensus. That's the part banks do not care about so I think it's largely irrelevant in the context of this article.
> The technological innovation of a blockchain is that it combines cryptographic signatures with a fault-tolerant distributed database. This is the naive view that has allowed the financial industry to ditch Bitcoin and run with blockchain. The problem that Bitcoin solves and private blockchains do not is called the Byzantine generals problem which did not have a known solution until Bitcoin came along. Private block…
> making it improbable that a single entity can exceeded 50% of the total hash power Not that improbable: http://www.coindesk.com/ghash-io-never-launch-51-attack/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a blockchain noob, but what about people like me that own some bitcoin, but don't touch them for a decade. I imagine my ownership of said coins would be in that part that is truncated/archived/hashed. So how would I then use them?
Someone more familiar with this than me feel free to correct me here, but this is my basic understanding: If you think of your bitcoins as following a path from address to address, the pruning process would retain the final node or two on that path but discard any previous nodes. So your 10 year old bitcoins at address X are still the most recent node on that chain and are kept around. However, once they are finally…
SET a 2
SET b 4
SET a 6
SET b 10
SET a 20
SET a 20
SET b 10
Can somebody explain me how we deal with the increasing size of a blockchain? I get moore's law etc., but other than that? I mean, it's trillions of transactions we are talking about. Federated servers? We break the chain in some way?
It is not even close to that yet. Eventually yes. Right now the bitcoin blockchain is about 80GB.
What real numbers are you using to predict this being a problem?
BTW a 120TB SSD meant for read heavy workloads was announced not long ago. Huge, fast random access and made for reads is exactly what you would want.
Beyond that my own prediction is that there will be many successful crypto-currencies. Most people won't store the blockchain of any of them, but whoever wants to be more involved could pick and choose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, actually, the one thing the blockchain provides, which was literally unsolved before pre-Nakamoto, was a working implementation of "trustless" consensus. That's the part banks do not care about so I think it's largely irrelevant in the context of this article.
I think Bangladesh cares about it by now
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, actually, the one thing the blockchain provides, which was literally unsolved before pre-Nakamoto, was a working implementation of "trustless" consensus. That's the part banks do not care about so I think it's largely irrelevant in the context of this article.
> That's the part banks do not care about so I think it's largely irrelevant in the context of this article. I have no idea where you got that idea, but it's not true. Which is why any deal that happens between institutions (and sometimes intra-institution) has an army of middle men who are responsible for verifying, monitoring, reporting, etc etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, actually, the one thing the blockchain provides, which was literally unsolved before pre-Nakamoto, was a working implementation of "trustless" consensus. That's the part banks do not care about so I think it's largely irrelevant in the context of this article.
> That's the part banks do not care about so I think it's largely irrelevant in the context of this article. I have no idea where you got that idea, but it's not true. Which is why any deal that happens between institutions (and sometimes intra-institution) has an army of middle men who are responsible for verifying, monitoring, reporting, etc etc.
> The technological innovation of a blockchain is that it combines cryptographic signatures with a fault-tolerant distributed database. This is the naive view that has allowed the financial industry to ditch Bitcoin and run with blockchain. The problem that Bitcoin solves and private blockchains do not is called the Byzantine generals problem which did not have a known solution until Bitcoin came along. Private block…
> making it improbable that a single entity can exceeded 50% of the total hash power Not that improbable: http://www.coindesk.com/ghash-io-never-launch-51-attack/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, actually, the one thing the blockchain provides, which was literally unsolved before pre-Nakamoto, was a working implementation of "trustless" consensus. That's the part banks do not care about so I think it's largely irrelevant in the context of this article.
I think Bangladesh cares about it by now