3 ms·
PoW solves this by economically incentivizing block production, and thereby creating a cost to anyone that would try to cheat the system. You don't need to trus
by coralreef 8y ago
PoW solves this by economically incentivizing block production, and thereby creating a cost to anyone that would try to cheat the system. You don't need to trust any party, you trust the math.
You said not to put the government of Venezuela in charge of the ledger. But when the government of Venezuela sends armed forces to the offices of your trusted party to confiscate its servers and equipment, what happens to your ledger?
- rspeer 8y agoYes, I know that's the argument for PoW, but PoW completely sucks in every way compared to trusting somebody. If the government of Venezuela takes all your computers and puts you in jail, what happens to your Bitcoin?
- coralreef 8y agoIf I'm in jail, my bitcoin still exists and when I get out, I could access it so long as I've memorized my seed words, or backed them up, or shared them with a family member I trust, who could use it while I'm incarcerated. It is not easily seized, and if you are careful, not easily identifiable. Using trust to secure your ledger is like driving without insurance; sure its cheaper and more efficient, until it isn't.
- rspeer 8y agoYour family member that you trust gave your seed words to the government, under duress. In a world that relies on not trusting anyone, you are screwed no matter what.
- coralreef 8y agoPutting a gun to someone's head will always be a security problem, in any system. In this case, it is not system threatening because no entity has power over the network. I may have relied on my family to keep a password secret, but that affects only me. The government cannot coerce the entire system unless it is prepared to put everyone in jail. Bitcoin lives on, and will not be stoppable. This is the power of a trustless system.