[Cryptography] Another Bitcoin issue (maybe) (was: BitCoin bug reported)

Natanael natanael.l at gmail.com
Sat Feb 15 20:42:15 EST 2014

Den 16 feb 2014 02:12 skrev "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <hallam at gmail.com>:
> What I have never worked out is why join the blockchain to the mining at
all. As Ben Laurie points out, it is wading through treacle.
> The blockchain is just an adaptation of the Surety/Harber/Stornetta
scheme. Forget the mining part for a moment, lets imagine that there are
100 independent notaries and every ten minutes they each produce an output
value that is based on local inputs plus the outputs of all the other
> It is not possible for a notary to defect in such a scheme unless every
other notary also defects.
> There are no 51% attacks possible, the cost of running the network is
acceptable. It is possible for someone to check if they have finality in a
> The key difference would be that the transaction chain would have to be
maintained by parties that form a consortium for that purpose.
> If there was going to be a PoW component then it would be the blocks go
to whoever gets the lowest hash output in a given computation chunk and has
the hash notarized in time.

Sounds like Ripple. Which have asset issuing "gateways", and all the
servers check the transactions in batches with the other servers it trusts.
I don't like that system myself. Relies far too much on trust. And systems
like it far to often don't have a good way of reacting to errors.

Also, a 51% attack when there are tons of idle miners will be fought off in
hours or even minutes simply by turning on the miners. It is likely more
economical to pay for the extra electricity than to pay through the loss of
value off the coins.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20140216/2e83b9b5/attachment.html>

More information about the cryptography mailing list