5 ms·
And if you go offline for a few hours, your peers can steal your balance (unless you entrust somebody else to monitor it for you, which has its own tradeoffs)
by masterjack 9y ago
And if you go offline for a few hours, your peers can steal your balance (unless you entrust somebody else to monitor it for you, which has its own tradeoffs)
- kyledrake 9y agoSo basically, it turns into a ridiculously complicated bank. That requires 42tWh of power waste (and growing) to function. I'm sorry, but I'm not impressed. Let's build a solution that scales better on-chain and uses a more power efficient mining algorithm.
- wtfstatists 9y ago> uses a more power efficient mining algorithm Thats axiomatically impossible. Its the amount of energy required, not nhashes/etc, that disincentivize an attacker from rewriting history.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- DennisP 9y agoWell, it's the financial cost required, which in PoW is a combination of energy and capital cost.
- imtringued 9y agoI think a combination of both is required for optimal results. Lightning is good enough for micropayments. On chain transactions are good for large payments. The only problem with on-chain scaling is that keeping a payment history for the entire planet is not really feasable. You have to somehow prune old data from the blockchain.
- EthanHeilman 9y agoWhat are the trade offs to having say 100,000 other parties monitor your channel for you?