3 ms·
Of course you need more than simply a signing infrastructure, you need to make sure that certain properties like not sending more than you have and no double sp
by X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago
Of course you need more than simply a signing infrastructure, you need to make sure that certain properties like not sending more than you have and no double spends are okay.
To accomplish that most systems require storing the entire blockchain (I hope you've shipped enough hard drives with it!) [1]
Then you either need to have zero bugs from the start or a way to update it.
Then you also need to democratize access to the up & down link
Then you need to make it robust to failure of that node...
For all of the legitimate reasons to hate blockchains/cryptocurrencies fairly intelligent people come up with asinine solutions around it.
If you are concerned about the waste that PoW creates then try to accelerate proof of stake and push for a carbon tax.
[1]: There is a constant sized blockchain that recently came out, I'm not sure if it's actually viable, but it's an interesting proposition. https://minaprotocol.com/ https://minaprotocol.com/
- ineedasername 5y agofairly intelligent people come up with asinine solutions around it. He posed it as a "modest proposal". [0] That pretty much guarantees that he did not intend it to be a serious or robustly presented option. Unless he actually enjoys eating Irish babies, which seems unlikely. (If you check out the story linked, it's important to know that it was written against the backdrop of a not-completely-passive bit of Irish genocide) [0] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm