4 ms·

This is basically the path you go down when you start to consider 'non-bitcoin' blockchains. Sure, you can do it, but if you want security, you go where the ha

This is basically the path you go down when you start to consider 'non-bitcoin' blockchains. Sure, you can do it, but if you want security, you go where the hashing power is. Network effect = one blockchain to rule them all Well, at least you'll have to connect in with the 'one blockchain'. Sidechains would be a great way to address this. It's important to remember how early days Bitcoin is, and cryptography and blockchains in general. They're still well within a research phase; it's hard to say what sort of solution they'll come up with.

kang 11y ago
I was talking to one of the bitcoin core devs and his opinion was that purely in terms of power consumed, litecoin could be more secure than bitcoin. Bitcoin certainly has the network effect in terms of usage going for it.
icebraining 11y ago
Maximizing hashing power is only needed in a public blockchain. If the pool is closed, you can force each node to provide a fixed power, and monitor the total power. If it increases over nodes*power-per-node, all nodes shut down automatically.
- natrius 11y ago
  No hashpower is required. If you have a fixed pool of validators, just rotate through the validators to pick who creates the next block.
  - woah 11y ago
    At that point, why do you need blocks? Couldn't each transaction just be signed by a certain percentage of validators?
maaku 11y ago
Bitcoin's security is not due to hash power alone, it is due to the decentralization of that hash power.