3 ms·
It's quite simple really. Do all miners [eventually] agree on the value of a block? Yes? That's a consensus. True there are other types of consensus that are p
by zero-x 9y ago
It's quite simple really. Do all miners [eventually] agree on the value of a block? Yes? That's a consensus.
True there are other types of consensus that are perhaps 'fairer' but that's not the issue here.
So yes, it is a consensus protocol. It's called Nakamoto consensus, and it's perfectly fine for its purpose.
- dozzie 9y ago> Do all miners [eventually] agree on the value of a block? Yes? That's a consensus. It's amazing how many things you got wrong in such a short statement. First, a program can't say when this "eventually" is. Then the "agree" part is wrong, too, because it can change just like that (because of forks), which even changes the history, not just a single transaction or group of them. And then there's also "all miners" part, which even read as customary universal quantifier ("all" meaning "most of them") falls apart if you remember that this needs to be assessed by a program with limited knowledge. It's not a consensus in any computer related meaning that one could think of.
- zero-x 9y agoThis is just silly. By these arguments even block #1 has no consensus and has not terminated. Because "it might fork" that's why it's not a consensus? lol, ok buddy.
- dozzie 9y agoDude, you haven't provided any usable criteria to declare any particular block as "agreed upon". All you said was "eventually", and even that has flaws. It's not something to argue against well known mathematics.
- YuriNiyazov 9y agoDon't argue with us. Argue with satoshi. https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09997.html https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09...