3 ms·

You don't have to have forks. When there is no agreement, the network can just stop working. Some might think that a bit useless, but when you're trying to reac

• CydeWeys 11y ago
  But then anyone can trivially shut down the network by submitting a single invalid block. The very first bit of abuse and everything is shut down and stops working indefinitely. How could this design serve a useful purpose? It seems a lot less useful than the way Bitcoin does it.
  • to3m 11y ago
    But who's going to abuse it? Why would it shut down indefinitely? This is a group of people or entities that has decided to do this. Presumably they all feel it's in their interests to make it work. Same as with any mutual agreement of this kind, if there's some kind of a falling-out, they'll probably just figure it out somehow. (As for invalid blocks - in the absence of a bug in the code that runs the system, all validators will say no to the invalid block(s), so there's no disagreement, and things carry on.)
    • CydeWeys 11y ago
      So now we're back to having trusted parties only, and you thus have centralization, and don't need a blockchain at all. You just need signed transactions among trusted peers. We keep going round in circles.
      • to3m 11y ago
        It's only centralized from the point of view of somebody who isn't involved. Those who are involved most likely won't see it as such - since if they did, they'd have chosen some other mechanism. They don't need to trust one another.