4 ms·
One solution that I have thought of is to have a mining difficulty by country and another one by passport. If the passports of a certain country mine a lot of b
by janmo 6y ago
One solution that I have thought of is to have a mining difficulty by country and another one by passport.
If the passports of a certain country mine a lot of blocks the difficulty for this country would increase. In this scenario it would take 51% of the countries to go rogue in order to perform a 51% attack.
Another thing to implement as well is to increase the difficulty for a passport to find a new block once it has already found a block. This way even if someone extracts the private key of a passport he will only be able to take a very limited advantage out of it because the difficulty for him would skyrocket, as a consequence the reward of doing this should be lower than the costs of doing the hardware hacking.
- londons_explore 6y agoThis sounds like the UN... Representatives from each country are voted in by the people, and those representatives vote... (for now assume all countries have perfect democracies and the UN does away with its veto system) Overall, it works, but I suspect we wouldn't see the explosion of "Blockchain 2.0" companies if instead they were "UN Governance 2.0" companies...
- centimeter 6y agoYou're describing a blockchain with nation-level votes instead of proof of work. I don't see any valuable properties in such a system compared to a normal bank. If the member nations get to control the contents of the blockchain anyway (because they can locally decide to to sybil attacks or whatever), why would I bother using such a system instead of just having an account at Barclays or whatever?
- icebraining 6y agoBarclays doesn't require the consensus of 51% of countries to do shenanigans. Plus their shenanigans are easy to keep hidden for years, whereas this attack would be quite obvious as it was performed. Yes, both require some level of trust in governments, but that doesn't mean they are the same.
- gruez 6y ago>One solution that I have thought of is to have a mining difficulty by country and another one by passport. If the passports of a certain country mine a lot of blocks the difficulty for this country would increase. But countries are a completely arbitrary distinction. Should Liechtenstein mining 100 blocks raise its difficulty as China mining 100 blocks? If not, how should we weigh each country? By population? By GDP? What's stopping countries from gaming their statistics to get more votes?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- sudosysgen 6y agoIt doesn't matter, mining difficulty is automatically determined by how much mining is being done.
- three_seagrass 6y agoThe NFC chips have static processing capability and do not scale with difficulty like a bitcoin server farm. How does increasing the mining difficulty affect the time it takes to scan a passport in line at the airport? It seems counter-intuitive to make passport processing take longer for higher-frequency travelers.
- icebraining 6y ago> How does increasing the mining difficulty affect the time it takes to scan a passport in line at the airport? It doesn't. The idea is not to change the actual passport, is to change the software that uses the passport to perform these calculations. That software would have to ask the passport to do 10000x operations instead of 100x. But each would take the same time as before.