[Cryptography] Standards Trolls: Re: Bitcoin is a disaster.

[Peter Fairbrother]

On 12/01/2021 03:38, Ben Laurie wrote:

>     Parts of the system connected with other parts can share lists of
>     connected parts, and authorise them - if you don't get an authorisation
>     including xyz then you know the system has been partitioned.
> 
>     If the system is densely connected then it can be impossible to
>     partition part of the system and not have a part of it say "hey the
>     system was 200 nodes big yesterday, how come it's only 10 nodes today?"
> 
>     Of course then the system has to do something about that, which may be
>     control...
> 
> 
> Exactly. How do you know that 10 nodes today is wrong?

You make some ad-hoc rules eg that you have to have 51% of the previous 
nodes.

But suppose the network is a network of banks operating a digital 
currency. Suppose it gets partitioned. What are the consequences?

Apart from people in one partition trying and failing to pay people in 
the other (which may not happen if the partitioning is between enemy 
countries for example), initially none.

The partitions can continue to operate as separate entities, and it 
doesn't matter if in partition A a partition A zenny buys a doughnut 
which costs 200 partition B zennies in partition B-land.

The problem comes when the partitions want to rejoin. But this is not an 
insurmountable problem, especially if we use a scarce resource as the 
basis of the currency (which is necessary for other reasons - the 
resource might be reputation, or gold, or proof-of-work, but there must 
be some basis for the currency), and can use that to readjust the 
relative values.


Peter Fairbrother