3 ms·
Sure, but if you're reaching consensus on a cryptographic chain of transactions, that's exactly what a blockchain is. Mining is not an integral feature.
by natrius 11y ago
Sure, but if you're reaching consensus on a cryptographic chain of transactions, that's exactly what a blockchain is. Mining is not an integral feature.
- danbruc 11y agoMining is the core feature that allows Bitcoin to work without knowing all the parties. Reaching consensus and cryptographically protecting information is not a very hard problem if you know the parties.
- natrius 11y agoThese banks clearly disagree with you. It's not cryptographic protection of data. It's the cryptographic audit trail that's useful. No one can break the rules of the system except for validators, and everyone instantly knows when a validator breaks the rules so they can stop trusting them.
- danbruc 11y agoI meant integrity protection, i.e. ensuring that no one can unilaterally modify the information afterwards. Hash chains and trees are at least 35 years old.
- eru 11y agoIe if you know all players, you could store your transactions in git instead of the blockchain.
- joelthelion 11y agoThere's a difference between knowing and trusting...
- eru 11y agoYou'd still sign your transactions. You only need to trust the players not to DoS or double spend---and these things are easy to audit for.