4 ms·

How do the banks ensure that aren't outmined? One of the key components of a blockchain is that no one mines more than half that chain. If you have too many bl

How do the banks ensure that aren't outmined? One of the key components of a blockchain is that no one mines more than half that chain. If you have too many blockchains, then you split the miners between the chains and open the doors for a big player to come in and overwhelm the other miners on that chain. I suppose you could somehow implement private blockchains where only those with the private key can participate, but I don't know whether this has been done or not.

ant6n 11y ago
They will use a private network with their own custom protocol, just reusing the idea of block chains to not require a central entity.
tibbon 11y ago
I was wondering the same. What's the incentive for me to mine (verify transactions) on their blockchains?
- sanswork 11y ago
  You won't have the option too and they won't have the need for you to so there is no incentive.
  - tibbon 11y ago
    How does anyone trust it then? Isn't it by default able to have them alter it then, as they win 51% of the processing power? It seems to miss all the benefit of a blockchain, or I'm missing something?
    - sanswork 11y ago
      They know all the participants and they don't use PoW. The benefits of a blockchain are known entry ordering and immutability. It sounds like you are missing a lot by having a bitcoin centric view of the problem space.
      - nickpsecurity 11y ago
        Every time Ive ever heard blockchain on here it was a Bitcoin- or Xcoin-centric view involving mining. I always countered with stuff like you just said from old research into distributed, fault-tolerant DB or SCM design. I had no idea until now that there was even parallel blockchain work with no proof of work. So there might be a greater press problem at work here not bringing out knowledge of other aspects of blockchain research to wider audience. I dont closely follow the field so I cant accurately guess more.
        brighton36 11y ago
        The so-called non-work based blockchains are typically just presented as blockchains for the marketing hype. These are run of the mill paxos databases which isn't very useful compared to modern signed message sending platforms that companies like swift use
        nickpsecurity 11y ago
        I figured it was something like that. Makes sense. Audible sigh once more for effect of marketing hype on comprehension.
        sanswork 11y ago
        I think the main press issue is that these other chains aren't really for public use so there is little benefit to pushing for press unless you're a company that develops them trying to find clients and we do actually see a lot of stories about this in the financial news.
        nickpsecurity 11y ago
        Makes sense.
    - s73v3r 11y ago
      Same reason people trust the banks current way of doing things. Keep in mind, this is just for the banks. You're not going to use it, except indirectly as your bank is using it to talk with other banks.
sanswork 11y ago
Banks don't need mining for their chains. >I suppose you could somehow implement private blockchains where only those with the private key can participate, but I don't know whether this has been done or not. This is what everyone is talking about. They aren't talking about mined chains.
- brighton36 11y ago
  If there's no mining its not a blockchain. Objective truth is the innovation that Bitcoin offered. These proposed system achieve consensus by merely voting for truth, which is technology we've had since the 80s
  - sanswork 11y ago
    Bullshit. Nothing about the term blockchain implies there must be mining. This whole "it's not a blockchain without mining" thing came straight from /r/bitcoin where a bunch of people seem to think that saying something isn't a blockchain matters so they keep trying to change the definition of it so bitcoin is the only true blockchain. >These proposed system achieve consensus by merely voting for truth, which is technology we've had since the 80s So what? What does that really change at all? Nothing.
    - brighton36 11y ago
      It means the security is non existent. Read any of the andrew poelstra papers for details on how and why. Subjective truth has been around for decades. No one cared about it , because its not useful. The only reason blockchains are useful now is because they enable value transmission between untrusted parties. (Which private chains don't do) The only reason blockchain is a buzzword now is so that consultants can bilk banks for database contracts.
      - sanswork 11y ago
        No it doesn't mean that at all. Just because you are unable to think up a system doesn't mean it's impossible. A basic and secure enough system is trivially easy. Which paper? It is no less truthful than bitcoin. It need not be more mutable than bitcoin. It is just different. >The only reason blockchains are useful now is because they enable value transmission between untrusted parties. Right because of how current blockchains are implemented and used.

ant6n 11y ago

They will use a private network with their own custom protocol, just reusing the idea of block chains to not require a central entity.

tibbon 11y ago

I was wondering the same. What's the incentive for me to mine (verify transactions) on their blockchains?

sanswork 11y ago
You won't have the option too and they won't have the need for you to so there is no incentive.
- tibbon 11y ago
  How does anyone trust it then? Isn't it by default able to have them alter it then, as they win 51% of the processing power? It seems to miss all the benefit of a blockchain, or I'm missing something?
  - sanswork 11y ago
    They know all the participants and they don't use PoW. The benefits of a blockchain are known entry ordering and immutability. It sounds like you are missing a lot by having a bitcoin centric view of the problem space.
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      Every time Ive ever heard blockchain on here it was a Bitcoin- or Xcoin-centric view involving mining. I always countered with stuff like you just said from old research into distributed, fault-tolerant DB or SCM design. I had no idea until now that there was even parallel blockchain work with no proof of work. So there might be a greater press problem at work here not bringing out knowledge of other aspects of blockchain research to wider audience. I dont closely follow the field so I cant accurately guess more.
      - brighton36 11y ago
        The so-called non-work based blockchains are typically just presented as blockchains for the marketing hype. These are run of the mill paxos databases which isn't very useful compared to modern signed message sending platforms that companies like swift use
        nickpsecurity 11y ago
        I figured it was something like that. Makes sense. Audible sigh once more for effect of marketing hype on comprehension.
      - sanswork 11y ago
        I think the main press issue is that these other chains aren't really for public use so there is little benefit to pushing for press unless you're a company that develops them trying to find clients and we do actually see a lot of stories about this in the financial news.
        nickpsecurity 11y ago
        Makes sense.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    Same reason people trust the banks current way of doing things. Keep in mind, this is just for the banks. You're not going to use it, except indirectly as your bank is using it to talk with other banks.

sanswork 11y ago

Banks don't need mining for their chains. >I suppose you could somehow implement private blockchains where only those with the private key can participate, but I don't know whether this has been done or not. This is what everyone is talking about. They aren't talking about mined chains.

brighton36 11y ago
If there's no mining its not a blockchain. Objective truth is the innovation that Bitcoin offered. These proposed system achieve consensus by merely voting for truth, which is technology we've had since the 80s
- sanswork 11y ago
  Bullshit. Nothing about the term blockchain implies there must be mining. This whole "it's not a blockchain without mining" thing came straight from /r/bitcoin where a bunch of people seem to think that saying something isn't a blockchain matters so they keep trying to change the definition of it so bitcoin is the only true blockchain. >These proposed system achieve consensus by merely voting for truth, which is technology we've had since the 80s So what? What does that really change at all? Nothing.
  - brighton36 11y ago
    It means the security is non existent. Read any of the andrew poelstra papers for details on how and why. Subjective truth has been around for decades. No one cared about it , because its not useful. The only reason blockchains are useful now is because they enable value transmission between untrusted parties. (Which private chains don't do) The only reason blockchain is a buzzword now is so that consultants can bilk banks for database contracts.
    - sanswork 11y ago
      No it doesn't mean that at all. Just because you are unable to think up a system doesn't mean it's impossible. A basic and secure enough system is trivially easy. Which paper? It is no less truthful than bitcoin. It need not be more mutable than bitcoin. It is just different. >The only reason blockchains are useful now is because they enable value transmission between untrusted parties. Right because of how current blockchains are implemented and used.