3 ms·
Bitcoin isn't a communication network, so this tradeoff isn't relevant. That said, if you did try to use it as a communication network, it would be an extremel
by petertodd 8y ago
Bitcoin isn't a communication network, so this tradeoff isn't relevant.
That said, if you did try to use it as a communication network, it would be an extremely high bandwidth overhead as anything you send on it gets flood-filled to everyone else on the network. It'd also be somewhat high latency due to low-level details of how transactions are forwarded around the network (the 10 minute block interval isn't really relevant to privacy).
But like I say, Bitcoin isn't trying to be a communication network, so the comparison isn't really valid.
- SilasX 8y ago>Bitcoin isn't trying to be a communication network, so the comparison isn't really valid. It's not literally labeled as a communication network, no, but it can be modeled as one without loss of generality. The messages are communications about changes in balances. What it tries to be does not matter.
- wyldfire 8y agoThe bitcoin whitepaper describes partitioning identities from transactions. But not anonymity. Realistically, it doesn't provide effective anonymity because if your identity leaks for any one transaction, it's likely leaked for all of your transactions.
- petertodd 8y agoMy point is Bitcoin isn't designed to be a communication network, so the tradeoffs it makes aren't educational for those just interested in communication networks. A more educational example might be the design of Bitmessage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitmessage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitmessage
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]