4 ms·

Yeah,you also need enough people willing to mine (and spend a lot of money doing so) your pork chops blockchain, otherwise anyone could come along and do a 50%

by stefano 10y ago

Yeah,you also need enough people willing to mine (and spend a lot of money doing so) your pork chops blockchain, otherwise anyone could come along and do a 50% attack.

bluejekyll 10y ago
Yeah. Isn't this a major problem with all of these alternative implementations? The 50% problem will always be an issues in small deployments. It's still a problem in the largest deployment. Does anyone have a "solution" to this? In this specific case, it seems like what they really should do is have a set of trusted nodes for ledger replication.
- bizzleDawg 10y ago
  Surely the best antidote to the 51% attack is to have a large population of nodes so that an attack would have to be prohibitively large? W.r.t. having a set of trusted nodes, that's fine, however does the blockchain add anything in this situation?
  - bluejekyll 10y ago
    No. That's actually my point. This industry probably doesn't want to invest in always having 51% of the nodes, so trusted central ledgers makes more sense to me.
- sanswork 10y ago
  The solution is to not use PoW.
sanswork 10y ago
Private chains don't depend on PoW.
- 0x0 10y ago
  Isn't PoW the defining characteristic of a blockchain?
  - sanswork 10y ago
    No, it is just a good(the best?) way to do public blockchains.
  - sanswork 10y ago
    Just to give a bit more detail with a blockchain you need some way to limit who can create a new block since you can change history by building a chain on an earlier block if you can create as many blocks as you want. In public networks this is hard since people can create as MD Danny accounts as they want so PoW which limits who can submit by resource usage or something similar is needed. In a private network you know all the participants so you can achieve the same result with something as simple as round robin.
    - 0x0 10y ago
      To me that feels like just a general consensus database problem, which has been solved a long time before bitcoin came along and "blockchain" gained mindshare. It appears "private blockchain" is mostly trying to ride the buzzword hype if it doesn't incorporate the new ideas and solutions that Satoshi presented, which is mostly about generating consensus for a ledger among a set of anonymous and possibly hostile peer-to-peer nodes on a public network?
      - sanswork 10y ago
        Right so it's just a different way to solve the problem. Satoshi didn't coin the term blockchain and they existed for a long time before bitcoin so giving him sole claim to it because it paired it with a feature that isn't specifically required to have a blockchain seems silly. That said I do agree that their are a lot of buzzword vultures using it at the moment for stupid business ideas though I think 99% of the bitcoin business ideas are poorly thought out and poor replacements for existing solutions("but with bitcoin!") so it's no surprise 99% of the blockchain ones are too.

by stefano 10y ago

Yeah,you also need enough people willing to mine (and spend a lot of money doing so) your pork chops blockchain, otherwise anyone could come along and do a 50% attack.

bluejekyll 10y ago

Yeah. Isn't this a major problem with all of these alternative implementations? The 50% problem will always be an issues in small deployments. It's still a problem in the largest deployment. Does anyone have a "solution" to this? In this specific case, it seems like what they really should do is have a set of trusted nodes for ledger replication.

bizzleDawg 10y ago
Surely the best antidote to the 51% attack is to have a large population of nodes so that an attack would have to be prohibitively large? W.r.t. having a set of trusted nodes, that's fine, however does the blockchain add anything in this situation?
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  No. That's actually my point. This industry probably doesn't want to invest in always having 51% of the nodes, so trusted central ledgers makes more sense to me.
sanswork 10y ago
The solution is to not use PoW.

sanswork 10y ago

Private chains don't depend on PoW.

0x0 10y ago
Isn't PoW the defining characteristic of a blockchain?
- sanswork 10y ago
  No, it is just a good(the best?) way to do public blockchains.
- sanswork 10y ago
  Just to give a bit more detail with a blockchain you need some way to limit who can create a new block since you can change history by building a chain on an earlier block if you can create as many blocks as you want. In public networks this is hard since people can create as MD Danny accounts as they want so PoW which limits who can submit by resource usage or something similar is needed. In a private network you know all the participants so you can achieve the same result with something as simple as round robin.
  - 0x0 10y ago
    To me that feels like just a general consensus database problem, which has been solved a long time before bitcoin came along and "blockchain" gained mindshare. It appears "private blockchain" is mostly trying to ride the buzzword hype if it doesn't incorporate the new ideas and solutions that Satoshi presented, which is mostly about generating consensus for a ledger among a set of anonymous and possibly hostile peer-to-peer nodes on a public network?
    - sanswork 10y ago
      Right so it's just a different way to solve the problem. Satoshi didn't coin the term blockchain and they existed for a long time before bitcoin so giving him sole claim to it because it paired it with a feature that isn't specifically required to have a blockchain seems silly. That said I do agree that their are a lot of buzzword vultures using it at the moment for stupid business ideas though I think 99% of the bitcoin business ideas are poorly thought out and poor replacements for existing solutions("but with bitcoin!") so it's no surprise 99% of the blockchain ones are too.