4 ms·
The same thing that prevents dishonest bitcoin miners from rigging the blockchain to say that coin X went from A->M instead of A->B. As long as there are more
by tg3 12y ago
The same thing that prevents dishonest bitcoin miners from rigging the blockchain to say that coin X went from A->M instead of A->B.
As long as there are more nodes who would not benefit from this particular rigging as there are nodes who would, everyone can act in their own self-interest and the outcome would be correct.
- maaku 12y ago> The same thing that prevents dishonest bitcoin miners from rigging the blockchain to say that coin X went from A->M instead of A->B. Oh, so it has a built-in mining subsidy that miners are rewarded with? Because without that bitcoin suffers from an even worse version of the exact same problem and is not incentive compatible. > As long as there are more nodes who would not benefit from this particular rigging as there are nodes who would, everyone can act in their own self-interest and the outcome would be correct. What counts as a node? Can I spin up a million or a billion nodes on AWS and influence the vote that way?
- vbuterin 12y ago> What counts as a node? Can I spin up a million or a billion nodes on AWS and influence the vote that way? Proof of work? Proof of stake? It's not exactly an unsolved problem.
- pigeons 12y agoproof of stake seems to be hardly an answer to the problem. And maaku seems to be pointing out that proof-of-work WITH SUBSIDY so far has worked, but without subsidy the dynamics are quite different.
- foxhedgehog 12y agoI think that falsifying proof-of-work in Bitcoin is probably much harder than affecting a voting outcome, which is reliant on human inputs.