https://www.game.tv/tournaments/Kell-Brook-vs-Terence-Crawford-En-Vivo--c4a983a7bc4044dd90a0af9597ab5c05
https://www.game.tv/tournaments/Terence-Crawford-vs-Kell-Brook-En-Vivo--d04c77f237b54230b27d5a54009e1448
https://www.game.tv/tournaments/Brook-vs-Crawford-En-Vivo--34fd1e6d365648ec9708cf2f0b1cfaf0
https://www.game.tv/tournaments/Crawford-vs-Brook-En-Vivo--1c1c81a1780c4682b0072b43ee914ed8
https://www.game.tv/tournaments/%E2%96%B7Kell-Brook-vs-Terence-Crawford-Live-Stream--2c81723ac8574f3a940c124c06a83fc9
https://www.game.tv/tournaments/%E2%96%B7Terence-Crawford-vs-Kell-Brook-Live-Stream--b6e3c0246a804297a8fbc12885fd1d8c
https://www.game.tv/tournaments/%E2%96%B7Brook-vs-Crawford-Live-Stream--179b840f018b4d74ac47a61aac127c7f
https://www.game.tv/tournaments/%E2%96%B7Crawford-vs-Brook-Live-Stream--94148490a7ce45ac8198fff58444e5af
https://www.residentadvisor.net/events/1430259
https://www.residentadvisor.net/events/1430260
https://www.residentadvisor.net/events/1430261
https://www.residentadvisor.net/events/1430262
https://www.residentadvisor.net/events/1430264
https://www.residentadvisor.net/events/1430265
https://mindferrs.substack.com/p/wegewd
https://blog.goo.ne.jp/yiuyuig/e/93ae62a3669612045a5f50deacf3b2fd
https://caribbeanfever.com/photo/albums/svasvase
http://officialguccimane.ning.com/photo/albums/asvsavsae
http://network-marketing.ning.com/profiles/blogs/savsavasve
http://www.onfeetnation.com/profiles/blogs/savsavsave
http://facebookhitlist.com/profiles/blogs/egewewd
http://recampus.ning.com/profiles/blogs/rejerjerfasv
http://millionairex3.ning.com/profiles/blogs/rtktrggg
http://beterhbo.ning.com/profiles/blogs/ykythhf-1
http://korsika.ning.com/profiles/blogs/krtrktrg-1
http://sfbats.ning.com/profiles/blogs/ttrkrfg-1
http://summerschooldns.ning.com/profiles/blogs/tyltylyt
http://zacriley.ning.com/profiles/blogs/egwehgew
http://divasunlimited.ning.com/profiles/blogs/ehwrehwf
http://www.4mark.net/story/2802675/wegewd
https://dgdsg36f643.hatenablog.com/entry/2020/11/15/104628
https://resembleautocraticparties.tumblr.com/post/634813161504227328/avaveew
https://www.peeranswer.com/question/5fb0871af67cda5211f06c58
https://www.posts123.com/post/877574/weghewhewewhew
https://www.topfind88.com/post/877579/wewehwedasfsafas
https://www.88posts.com/post/259653/dgdshsdhsdtjtrrrff
https://www.topfind123.com/link/821059/ewgewgweg
https://www.1upfun.com/post/1319155/savsavase
https://www.mydigoo.com/forums-topicdetail-197559.html
http://www.clashofclans-tools.com/Thread-32953/kjhjjdiuiud
https://www.dancehalldatabase.com/forum/Dancehall-Reggae/kjhjjdiuiud/fe9de7041388eb8ed9ed759a00b3809c/8215
https://lemon.shivtr.com/forum_threads/3269881
http://world-surf.com/forum/projects/257585/kjhjjdiuiud/
https://note.com/avegewgew/n/nba6d8441439d
https://www.peeranswer.com/question/5fb089f9a1d393d94e5e1525
https://jsfiddle.net/5z0kteLp/
https://paiza.io/projects/64qpbcqIYMxXQoaw_-kVRw?language=php
https://paste.tbee-clan.de/yFs5R
https://friendpaste.com/1chEHebWRXmNbGW9KmGhvo
https://onlinegdb.com/BJo66bCKv
https://paiza.io/projects/o0gdliqanliyznzwI0HqKg?language=php
https://www.hybrid-analysis.com/sample/0240521cc9f30c4315d28910a187f1d62d326c619c66754f1347d3dd6cced949
http://world-surf.com/forum/worldsurf-talk/257605/where-to-find-kell-brook-vs-terence-crawford-how-to-watch/
https://www.nairaland.com/6256755/where-find-kell-brook-vs
http://minimore.com/b/0wdTt/1
https://www.milesplit.com/discussion/170144
https://bpa.st/J3FQ
https://p.teknik.io/33SvK
https://paste.in/9RvN7q
https://pasteio.com/xgsgFrGnFZDH
https://paste.ee/p/s8hZI
https://paste.centos.org/view/e187a5bc
https://pastebin.com/6VQBtJ2w
https://slexy.org/view/s2fz5GVDCe
https://paste.feed-the-beast.com/view/764942af
https://paste.tbee-clan.de/dGTgb
https://rentry.co/x6of3
https://paste.by/xYCFfR1tEQ
https://www.page2share.com/page/498955/ewgewhwehweh
https://freetexthost.net/ZokRcykt
http://fireblade.ru/index.php?showtopic=65065
http://www.themiddleclassalliance.com/forums/showthread.php?52419-ytiuyuuffy&p=58531#post58531
http://www.arcoastur.com/foro/viewtopic.php?p=123469#123469
https://kazan.ros-spravka.ru/forum/messages/forum9/message59544/21102-ytiuyuuffy/?result=new#message59544
https://www.43ft.com/43FT/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=2014727
http://forum.lilithgame.com/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=97358
Topic: Are blockchains truly distributed systems? (Read 883 times)
It feels like we're looping the discussion again and again. I'll just quote my older posts.
Again, all the non-mining nodes do no processing here, they relay / route at best.
Signature verification, checking UTXO not spend twice, checking the input actually exist, etc. 
I honestly can't tell if hv_ is simply ignorant or just trolling at this point.
it is neither, they (and by them i mean all the idiots following Craig Scammer Wright) are trying to convince people with a dishonest narrative that users not only don't need to but also they shouldn't run full nodes. basically it tells them that they should rely on centralized services only. the purpose is to justify the ridiculous block size of bcashsv (2GB) that is a fundamental flaw, and prevent any argument against it such as "users can't run full nodes if blocks were that big" before it starts.
It wasn't "my criteria". It's about what Bitcoin/blockchain networks are. That each node in the network re-validates and re-processes everyone's transactions.
Again, all the non-mining nodes do no processing here, they relay / route at best.
--snipped--
Stopped you there.
Of course non-mining full nodes process/validate. They validate that everything is in order/follows the rules BEFORE propagating/relaying.
Some miners don't even run their own nodes. Are you saying they don't process/validate?
I honestly can't tell if hv_ is simply ignorant or just trolling at this point. This is basic stuff that anyone who has been around for more than 5 minutes should be able to understand. The whole idea of running a full node is that you don't rely on trusting others like SPV users do. If full node software wasn't validating the info it is receiving, you would have to blindly trust that it was correct. Maybe that's how faketoshi vision works, heh.
And as the popular idiom around here goes: "Don't trust. Verify."
But let's be on topic. Blockchains are NOT distributed systems. I haven't seen a post that tells me I'm wrong.
That's because you consider a system to be either distributed or not distributed, with nothing in between. I don't think any system could be considered distributed by your criteria.
It wasn't "my criteria". It's about what Bitcoin/blockchain networks are. That each node in the network re-validates and re-processes everyone's transactions.
Again, all the non-mining nodes do no processing here, they relay / route at best.
--snipped--
Stopped you there.
Of course non-mining full nodes process/validate. They validate that everything is in order/follows the rules BEFORE propagating/relaying.
Some miners don't even run their own nodes. Are you saying they don't process/validate?
But let's be on topic. Blockchains are NOT distributed systems. I haven't seen a post that tells me I'm wrong.
That's because you consider a system to be either distributed or not distributed, with nothing in between. I don't think any system could be considered distributed by your criteria.
It wasn't "my criteria". It's about what Bitcoin/blockchain networks are. That each node in the network re-validates and re-processes everyone's transactions.
Again, all the non-mining nodes do no processing here, they relay / route at best. Compare as open banking api clients, consuming what banks / payment processors create ( mine ) for them. With those consuming clients you might just be out of sync with the mining network if you store some account data and find out later in the process, that sth went 'wrong' with what the mining processors produced for you ( new block / new longer chain / rewrite a lot what consumer nodes have stored before). But nothing you can do here, except try to mine a correct block on top and claim that your process chain is the correct one.
So only miners keep it up and running
Like banks/ swift/ ach network.
Those are the processors, the trusted parties.
Your home non mining hobby node does nothing in terms of trust
Huge processors wont never ever trust those data, they run bigger ones, higher connected (to other strong miners prior), fast and expensive - cause their profits depend on that
The world is not equal, esp when there is profit. PoW is such
But let's be on topic. Blockchains are NOT distributed systems. I haven't seen a post that tells me I'm wrong.
That's because you consider a system to be either distributed or not distributed, with nothing in between. I don't think any system could be considered distributed by your criteria.
It wasn't "my criteria". It's about what Bitcoin/blockchain networks are. That each node in the network re-validates and re-processes everyone's transactions.
Whichever source your client connects to and starts pulling data from, you know it's going to be the same information everyone else has, because that source would be forked off the network if they attempted to alter the data in their copy of the blockchain.
you don't know this and the node you connect to could actually be on a fake fork. in fact this is a known attack vector. it is trivial to mine a huge number of blocks on top of genesis block in this day and age with a single ASIC since the difficulty was the minimum. so if you simply trust the first node you connect to and start downloading blocks from it you could waste your time and traffic by downloading a ton of data (the fake blocks could be big too) until at some point your node realizes it is on a fork and has to re-download everything from block 1.
this was mitigated by introduction of headers-first IBD in bitcoin core 0.10
I would avoid applying ideas of morality to the words "honest" and "attack". Morality does not apply here.
I also would like to point out that we have seen many examples showing that a "51% attack" is not necessarily fatal. That means that Bitcoin is much more susceptible to a 51% attack than people believe because the idea that the attacker loses everything is simply not true.
That's because you consider a system to be either distributed or not distributed, with nothing in between. I don't think any system could be considered distributed by your criteria.
I also would like to point out that we have seen many examples showing that a "51% attack" is not necessarily fatal. That means that Bitcoin is much more susceptible to a 51% attack than people believe because the idea that the attacker loses everything is simply not true.
But let's be on topic. Blockchains are NOT distributed systems. I haven't seen a post that tells me I'm wrong.
That's because you consider a system to be either distributed or not distributed, with nothing in between. I don't think any system could be considered distributed by your criteria.
But let's be on topic. Blockchains are NOT distributed systems. I haven't seen a post that tells me I'm wrong.
I kinda see what you're getting at. But if you are syncing a full node for the first time, you don't need to place trust in any particular node or miner in order to obtain your copy of the blockchain. Whichever source your client connects to and starts pulling data from, you know it's going to be the same information everyone else has, because that source would be forked off the network if they attempted to alter the data in their copy of the blockchain. So in that sense, is it not a distributed system? Just because your client is checking the information it receives to ensure it conforms to certain rules, that doesn't mean your node can operate entirely on its own. It needs to connect to a network of other peers in order to function.
If you went down a different route and remotely downloaded a copy of the blockchain as a compressed file via torrent or some other means, then there is always the potential that, while your node might not find any data in that copy of the blockchain that breaks any validation rules, if someone has tampered with or falsified a transaction in that version you've downloaded, then you won't sync with the correct network. Verification alone is not always sufficient to guarantee consensus.
See your cousin forkcoin, BTG, as an example. They suffered a hashrate attack because they failed to maintain the incentive to remain honest.
why go that far, the bcashsv's parent shitcoin called bcash was also 51% attacked last year in May because it is centralized and one mining cartel controls more than 90% of its hashrate.https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-cash-miners-undo-attackers-transactions-with-51-attack
True enough. My recollection is somehow more vivid for the BTG one. I had a vague memory it happened to BCH as well, but wasn't 100% sure. BCH is definitely a much better comparison, though, since the estimated cost of attack is very similar to BSV. Arguably, it's only a matter of time before someone decides the "vision" isn't panning out and does something naughty. That said, would any BSV users even notice if their chain got attacked? They all seem to be too blinded by fiction to see clearly.
They're not blinded. They are scamming, and shilling "Satoshi's Vision" and then try to get what they actually want from you. Your Bitcoin in exchange for their shitcoin.
But let's be on topic. Blockchains are NOT distributed systems. I haven't seen a post that tells me I'm wrong.
See your cousin forkcoin, BTG, as an example. They suffered a hashrate attack because they failed to maintain the incentive to remain honest.
why go that far, the bcashsv's parent shitcoin called bcash was also 51% attacked last year in May because it is centralized and one mining cartel controls more than 90% of its hashrate.https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-cash-miners-undo-attackers-transactions-with-51-attack
True enough. My recollection is somehow more vivid for the BTG one. I had a vague memory it happened to BCH as well, but wasn't 100% sure. BCH is definitely a much better comparison, though, since the estimated cost of attack is very similar to BSV. Arguably, it's only a matter of time before someone decides the "vision" isn't panning out and does something naughty. That said, would any BSV users even notice if their chain got attacked? They all seem to be too blinded by fiction to see clearly.
Where is the trust then ? Why would that very cartel do sth 'bad' ? Could that 'hide' ?
As a simple example. Then Bitmain/Jihan Wu and the mining cartel will have a better probability to, increase the block size/remove the limit, remove the Core developers, even if if the users/community do not want both.
Plus if no one ran full nodes, you want the users to trust the miners?
You just must trust HONEST miners - as described in the initial financial term sheet of Bitcoin - read the White Paper - that is binding, only.
But trust who? WHO ARE THE HONEST MINERS?
Bitcoin is robust because it was designed to assume that EVERYONE can become a BAD ACTOR against the network.
really everyone ?
Why long term investing miners ? Big enough to really do sth bad ?
Who's good to you, would not be good to me. Who's good for Core, would not be good for the big blockers. Who's good to Faketoshi Wright, would definitely good for Roger Ver.
Should we trust the miners to hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited evsn though there's a technical debate that it's bad for the network? What would happen if the mining cartel was co-opted by the Chinese government? What would be the last line of defense to secure Bitcoin? FULL NODES.
See your cousin forkcoin, BTG, as an example. They suffered a hashrate attack because they failed to maintain the incentive to remain honest.
why go that far, the bcashsv's parent shitcoin called bcash was also 51% attacked last year in May because it is centralized and one mining cartel controls more than 90% of its hashrate.https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-cash-miners-undo-attackers-transactions-with-51-attack
You just must trust HONEST miners - as described in the initial financial term sheet of Bitcoin - read the White Paper - that is binding, only.
But trust who? WHO ARE THE HONEST MINERS?
Bitcoin is robust because it was designed to assume that EVERYONE can become a BAD ACTOR against the network.
really everyone ?
Why long term investing miners ? Big enough to really do sth bad ?
Bitcoin is perfectly done, including its implemented game theory
Miners are the makers - for the incentives - long term
everyone else just cannot do any harm, even 1000s of following Sybil nodes, cause they can only update what miners make or be out of sync - do harm for other Sybils
so better have only few powerful ones those to get paid for stay honest
You don't appear to grasp the concept behind the alignment of incentives. Any given blockchain should offer greater benefit in securing the chain than it does to cheat. Coins which get the balance wrong have already been attacked. See your cousin forkcoin, BTG, as an example. They suffered a hashrate attack because they failed to maintain the incentive to remain honest. Part of that largely unseen equation comes from the cost of sustaining such an attack for a prolonged period.
You can see the cost of maintaining a hashrate attack for a few coins here. Of the SHA256 coins that are listed, you might notice yours is the cheapest to attack. You can keep relying on trust and fanciful notions such as "honest miners" , like someone who is totally ignorant of the consequences, but we're not doing that.
You need to stop pretending you can come in here and lecture us because you've been duped by a second-rate copy of a white paper. All you have are wild theories and gross misconceptions. You clearly don't understand how any of this works in practice. Nor does Faketoshi for that matter. If you're going to be a mouthpiece for someone, at least make sure they're not a technologically-illiterate clown.
Where is the trust then ? Why would that very cartel do sth 'bad' ? Could that 'hide' ?
As a simple example. Then Bitmain/Jihan Wu and the mining cartel will have a better probability to, increase the block size/remove the limit, remove the Core developers, even if if the users/community do not want both.
Plus if no one ran full nodes, you want the users to trust the miners?
You just must trust HONEST miners - as described in the initial financial term sheet of Bitcoin - read the White Paper - that is binding, only.
But trust who? WHO ARE THE HONEST MINERS?
Bitcoin is robust because it was designed to assume that EVERYONE can become a BAD ACTOR against the network.
really everyone ?
Why long term investing miners ? Big enough to really do sth bad ?
Bitcoin is perfectly done, including its implemented game theory
Miners are the makers - for the incentives - long term
everyone else just cannot do any harm, even 1000s of following Sybil nodes, cause they can only update what miners make or be out of sync - do harm for other Sybils
so better have only few powerful ones those to get paid for stay honest
You just must trust HONEST miners - as described in the initial financial term sheet of Bitcoin - read the White Paper - that is binding, only.
Yes, network is secure as long as honest miners control most CPU power of the network. You say that you have to trust honest miners, that's not necessarily true. You would have to trust them if they would "carry" your money, but they're not banks. You trust them your transaction's confirmation, but even if someone had the power to reverse your transaction that is more than 6 blocks deep, he wouldn't use it to reverse anything. He would use it to generate new blocks, because it would be more profitable.
Where is the trust then ? Why would that very cartel do sth 'bad' ? Could that 'hide' ?
As a simple example. Then Bitmain/Jihan Wu and the mining cartel will have a better probability to, increase the block size/remove the limit, remove the Core developers, even if if the users/community do not want both.
Plus if no one ran full nodes, you want the users to trust the miners?
You just must trust HONEST miners - as described in the initial financial term sheet of Bitcoin - read the White Paper - that is binding, only.
But trust who? WHO ARE THE HONEST MINERS?
Bitcoin is robust because it was designed to assume that EVERYONE can become a BAD ACTOR against the network.
Where is the trust then ? Why would that very cartel do sth 'bad' ? Could that 'hide' ? And where do they cash out? - no KYC ?
Are you really interested in discussing trust / global finance ?
Are you really interested in discussing trust / global finance ?
it is not about hiding, it is about not being able to do anything about it. for example in a scenario where there isn't any nodes and there is a mining cartel, they could be bribed by some shitty exchange that got hacked to reverse a bunch of blocks just because that shitty exchange was incompetent and insecure and got hacked. there would be nothing anybody could do since there is no node in that scenario to reject their "less work" chain. this is not even hypothetical, it happened a while ago when Binance got hacked and tried bribing miners but wasn't successful.
the distribution of hash power and the authority of full nodes spread across the globe enforcing the rules prevents that.
Where is the trust then ? Why would that very cartel do sth 'bad' ? Could that 'hide' ?
As a simple example. Then Bitmain/Jihan Wu and the mining cartel will have a better probability to, increase the block size/remove the limit, remove the Core developers, even if if the users/community do not want both.
Plus if no one ran full nodes, you want the users to trust the miners?
You just must trust HONEST miners - as described in the initial financial term sheet of Bitcoin - read the White Paper - that is binding, only.
The globe reads that and trust that.
There is no way anything else is trustworthy and compliant with what Bitcoin defines from the start
bad things happened already and we are in the middle to watch how that plays out
Where is the trust then ? Why would that very cartel do sth 'bad' ? Could that 'hide' ?
As a simple example. Then Bitmain/Jihan Wu and the mining cartel will have a better probability to, increase the block size/remove the limit, remove the Core developers, even if if the users/community do not want both.
Plus if no one ran full nodes, you want the users to trust the miners?
Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users)
Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.
Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.
You're welcome to that opinion. If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have). But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network. And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice. You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.
That's how network governance functions. If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead. Just don't expect others to tag along. You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.
More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever
More centralized towards the miners, because fewer full nodes could also mean, it's easier to co-opt the network. Why choose a deaign-decision that undershoots security, instead of overshoot it?
Quote
Only open (not from anos and hiding entities) competition counters centralization - that's where we are and see original Bitcoin works as it should
Put miners on business risk - that's ok
Isn't the "competition" always open?
There is no proof for ' it's easier to co-opt the network. '
It would definitely be easier to Sybil Attack a cryptocurrency network that's scaled in/centralized towards the miners, than a network that's scaling out.
Quote
Some big telecoms run the internet for you
It's harder for them to censor a more scaled out, decentralized network that overshoots security, than undershoot it for the sake of "speed".
Quote
- Snip -
Are you trolling?
Non-miners (unpayed relay clients, spin up 1000s easy) are the Sybil to the miners ( payed servers )
proof me wrong
If everyone who ran full nodes stopped running them, then the mining cartel would have absolute rule over the network. What would be the point of Bitcoin? Haha.
Where is the trust then ? Why would that very cartel do sth 'bad' ? Could that 'hide' ? And where do they cash out? - no KYC ?
Are you really interested in discussing trust / global finance ?
Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users)
Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.
Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.
You're welcome to that opinion. If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have). But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network. And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice. You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.
That's how network governance functions. If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead. Just don't expect others to tag along. You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.
More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever
More centralized towards the miners, because fewer full nodes could also mean, it's easier to co-opt the network. Why choose a deaign-decision that undershoots security, instead of overshoot it?
Quote
Only open (not from anos and hiding entities) competition counters centralization - that's where we are and see original Bitcoin works as it should
Put miners on business risk - that's ok
Isn't the "competition" always open?
There is no proof for ' it's easier to co-opt the network. '
It would definitely be easier to Sybil Attack a cryptocurrency network that's scaled in/centralized towards the miners, than a network that's scaling out.
Quote
Some big telecoms run the internet for you
It's harder for them to censor a more scaled out, decentralized network that overshoots security, than undershoot it for the sake of "speed".
Quote
- Snip -
Are you trolling?
Non-miners (unpayed relay clients, spin up 1000s easy) are the Sybil to the miners ( payed servers )
proof me wrong
If everyone who ran full nodes stopped running them, then the mining cartel would have absolute rule over the network. What would be the point of Bitcoin? Haha.
Blockchains are distributed consensus systems, where verification and consolidation are spread over the network instead of performed on a centralized database. Given that consensus is needed for actions to occur, it is a truly distributed system.
It's actually the opposite. Every single full node re-validates the everyone's transactions.
Blockchains are distributed consensus systems, where verification and consolidation are spread over the network instead of performed on a centralized database.
that is a bad way of putting it because it sounds a bit like the nodes are sharing the work when it comes to verification process. the system is decentralized because nodes don't rely on others and verify everything themselves. in a world of big open known registered competing mining corps , engaged with bigger regulators and acting compliant - there is no successful attacking anymore
there are no "big open known registered competing mining corps". the biggest mining farms nowadays only have a small portion of the total hashrate and the security is always ensured by the distribution of the mining power (among other things) not by trusting that some corporations will always remain honest. Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users)
Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.
Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.
You're welcome to that opinion. If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have). But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network. And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice. You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.
That's how network governance functions. If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead. Just don't expect others to tag along. You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.
More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever
More centralized towards the miners, because fewer full nodes could also mean, it's easier to co-opt the network. Why choose a deaign-decision that undershoots security, instead of overshoot it?
Quote
Only open (not from anos and hiding entities) competition counters centralization - that's where we are and see original Bitcoin works as it should
Put miners on business risk - that's ok
Isn't the "competition" always open?
There is no proof for ' it's easier to co-opt the network. '
It would definitely be easier to Sybil Attack a cryptocurrency network that's scaled in/centralized towards the miners, than a network that's scaling out.
Quote
Some big telecoms run the internet for you
It's harder for them to censor a more scaled out, decentralized network that overshoots security, than undershoot it for the sake of "speed".
Quote
- Snip -
Are you trolling?
Non-miners (unpayed relay clients, spin up 1000s easy) are the Sybil to the miners ( payed servers )
proof me wrong
Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users)
Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.
Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.
You're welcome to that opinion. If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have). But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network. And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice. You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.
That's how network governance functions. If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead. Just don't expect others to tag along. You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.
More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever
More centralized towards the miners, because fewer full nodes could also mean, it's easier to co-opt the network. Why choose a deaign-decision that undershoots security, instead of overshoot it?
Quote
Only open (not from anos and hiding entities) competition counters centralization - that's where we are and see original Bitcoin works as it should
Put miners on business risk - that's ok
Isn't the "competition" always open?
There is no proof for ' it's easier to co-opt the network. '
It would definitely be easier to Sybil Attack a cryptocurrency network that's scaled in/centralized towards the miners, than a network that's scaling out.
Quote
Some big telecoms run the internet for you
It's harder for them to censor a more scaled out, decentralized network that overshoots security, than undershoot it for the sake of "speed".
Quote
- Snip -
Are you trolling?
Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users)
Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.
Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.
You're welcome to that opinion. If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have). But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network. And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice. You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.
That's how network governance functions. If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead. Just don't expect others to tag along. You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.
More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever
More centralized towards the miners, because fewer full nodes could also mean, it's easier to co-opt the network. Why choose a deaign-decision that undershoots security, instead of overshoot it?
Quote
Only open (not from anos and hiding entities) competition counters centralization - that's where we are and see original Bitcoin works as it should
Put miners on business risk - that's ok
Isn't the "competition" always open?
There is no proof for ' it's easier to co-opt the network. '
Some big telecoms run the internet for you
You are already in that game - good they are really professional and earn money regulated with that. ( sure, they can do lot of shit, cause things might be intransparent - esp money flows...)
Bitcoin is cool, cause it is so TRANSPARENT - not anno, so you can track all that crap / fix it in our legal ways we deved for thousends of year running societies - here is your trust
If you don t trust our legal system you might have problems with those - but Bitcoin lives in it. It can only help to debunk shit cause of transparent money / transaction flows - so get goverements to use it and the fun starts
Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users)
Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.
Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.
You're welcome to that opinion. If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have). But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network. And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice. You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.
That's how network governance functions. If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead. Just don't expect others to tag along. You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.
More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever
More centralized towards the miners, because fewer full nodes could also mean, it's easier to co-opt the network. Why choose a deaign-decision that undershoots security, instead of overshoot it?
Quote
Only open (not from anos and hiding entities) competition counters centralization - that's where we are and see original Bitcoin works as it should
Put miners on business risk - that's ok
Isn't the "competition" always open?
You're welcome to that opinion. If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have). But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network. And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice. You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.
That's how network governance functions. If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead. Just don't expect others to tag along. You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.
That's how network governance functions. If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead. Just don't expect others to tag along. You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.
More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever
It means, like many things in life, if you buy cheap, you often get cheap in terms of quality. Sure, you might pay lower fees, but there's a greater risk of hashrate attacks due to the weaker security, weaker network governance, meaning controversial changes to the protocol could slip through more easily because there are fewer nodes to convince, more chance of people losing faith in your weaker chain and diminishing the value of your funds. If your coin is repeatedly attacked and the value goes to zero, just remember that's what you signed up for because you thought it would save you on fees.
in a world of big open known registered competing mining corps , engaged with bigger regulators and acting compliant - there is no successful attacking anymore
they ensure system is running for the globe at lowest fees to be max attractive
that's what I ve signed for
You're welcome to that opinion. If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have). But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network. And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice. You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.
That's how network governance functions. If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead. Just don't expect others to tag along. You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.
That's how network governance functions. If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead. Just don't expect others to tag along. You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.
More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever
It means, like many things in life, if you buy cheap, you often get cheap in terms of quality. Sure, you might pay lower fees, but there's a greater risk of hashrate attacks due to the weaker security, weaker network governance, meaning controversial changes to the protocol could slip through more easily because there are fewer nodes to convince, more chance of people losing faith in your weaker chain and diminishing the value of your funds. If your coin is repeatedly attacked and the value goes to zero, just remember that's what you signed up for because you thought it would save you on fees.
//EDIT:
in a world of big open known registered competing mining corps , engaged with bigger regulators and acting compliant - there is no successful attacking anymore
Either you're trying to be funny and I'm not getting the joke, or you genuinely don't understand how weak your chain is. In terms of raw hashrate, your preferred chain is a fly splattered across the windscreen of Bitcoin's 18-wheeler. Even if your chain was compliant with regulators (and it isn't), you need to comprehend that regulators are in no position to help you when your chain gets attacked.
If you wish to continue promoting your forkcoin, please do so in the altcoins board where it belongs.
Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users)
Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.
Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.
You're welcome to that opinion. If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have). But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network. And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice. You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.
That's how network governance functions. If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead. Just don't expect others to tag along. You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.
More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever
Only open (not from anos and hiding entities) competition counters centralization - that's where we are and see original Bitcoin works as it should
Put miners on business risk - that's ok
Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users)
Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.
Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.
You're welcome to that opinion. If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have). But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network. And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice. You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.
That's how network governance functions. If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead. Just don't expect others to tag along. You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.
Yerify doesn t mean anything - you can verify what your e-Banking client shows - and go moaning about
Signature verification, checking UTXO not spend twice, checking the input actually exist, etc.
His motive for posting that is for a follow-up debate that users "don't need to run full nodes". OK, maybe we don't, MAYBE, but should the Core developers remove our ability to run one, and undershoot network security?
Nobody can remove anyone to run things for Bitcoin - this is sheer open for all, for good.
Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users)
Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.
The open competition here ensures true and good enough distribution & trust over time
You might trust big telecoms, Google, Amazon, Apple ,... already 'enough' ? Or they would not exist...
Yerify doesn t mean anything - you can verify what your e-Banking client shows - and go moaning about
Signature verification, checking UTXO not spend twice, checking the input actually exist, etc.
His motive for posting that is for a follow-up debate that users "don't need to run full nodes". OK, maybe we don't, MAYBE, but should the Core developers remove our ability to run one, and undershoot network security?
Less storage and less bandwidth than now but control of emission is still maintained.
That didn't make any sense.
User verifies all transactions in his shard to ensure that no extra coins are injected by miners - control of emission.
You said that miners/stakers are required to have all the shards. That is NOT sharding, and it makes a full node lesser than what it is in a non-sharded network.
We don't care about miners' wishes and requirements, through competition they will bear any block size as long as it brings in profit. Shards are created to accommodate reduced storage and bandwidth capacity of users.
These shards are detached from each other, basically being independent currencies. But it's not something unheard of, throughout history people have been operating in parallel standards - gold, silver, copper. In the USA there were multiple coins before establishment of the Federal Reserve. Even now people in borderline zones carry two or three sorts of banknotes in their wallets. So if a technically sound and scalable solution could long-term stop corruption and legalized theft then I would say these conversions between independent currencies/shards would look like minor inconvenience.
That doesn't change anything except make "full nodes" mean less than what they are in a non-sharded network.
Plus the complexity for what benefit? Do we stop trusting the consensus, and start trusting each node?
This is the best rabbit whole, where actually comes the trust from...
I believe you misunderstood. mda was posting about the miners having all blocks in a sharded-network, but "full nodes" having only to verify "their part" of the sharded-network? Do we stop trusting the consensus and trust the other nodes that have the other part of the sharded-network? To what benefit?
Yerify doesn t mean anything - you can verify what your e-Banking client shows - and go moaning about
If you re out of sync and behind mining nodes you re even more in the sybil regime
only miners make blocks and if they don't verify they ll lose money
But still, where comes the real trust from - if there is at all ? From all the little anno sybils ?
Are you with the belief that the community should NOT run full nodes, NOT to verify the blockchain for themselves, and to TRUST the miners not to change the protocol? Isn't that FED 2.0? What would be the point of Bitcoin?
Yes? But in a "distributed blockchain network", it might the the opposite of "distributed", because every node must validate every participant's transactions/messages, taking the processing by themselves.
Have we misunderstood what it truly is?
Well it all depends on what the blockchain is for. There are numerous non-monetary blockchains that are used as an immutable database of 'things' that range from tracking food production, civil records and many many other things - for those the blockchain is by necessity a very centralized operation.Have we misunderstood what it truly is?
I believe you also misunderstood.
Yes? But in a "distributed blockchain network", it might the the opposite of "distributed", because every node must validate every participant's transactions/messages, taking the processing by themselves.
Have we misunderstood what it truly is?
Well it all depends on what the blockchain is for. There are numerous non-monetary blockchains that are used as an immutable database of 'things' that range from tracking food production, civil records and many many other things - for those the blockchain is by necessity a very centralized operation. Have we misunderstood what it truly is?
Less storage and less bandwidth than now but control of emission is still maintained.
That didn't make any sense.
User verifies all transactions in his shard to ensure that no extra coins are injected by miners - control of emission.
You said that miners/stakers are required to have all the shards. That is NOT sharding, and it makes a full node lesser than what it is in a non-sharded network.
We don't care about miners' wishes and requirements, through competition they will bear any block size as long as it brings in profit. Shards are created to accommodate reduced storage and bandwidth capacity of users.
These shards are detached from each other, basically being independent currencies. But it's not something unheard of, throughout history people have been operating in parallel standards - gold, silver, copper. In the USA there were multiple coins before establishment of the Federal Reserve. Even now people in borderline zones carry two or three sorts of banknotes in their wallets. So if a technically sound and scalable solution could long-term stop corruption and legalized theft then I would say these conversions between independent currencies/shards would look like minor inconvenience.
That doesn't change anything except make "full nodes" mean less than what they are in a non-sharded network.
Plus the complexity for what benefit? Do we stop trusting the consensus, and start trusting each node?
This is the best rabbit whole, where actually comes the trust from...
I believe you misunderstood. mda was posting about the miners having all blocks in a sharded-network, but "full nodes" having only to verify "their part" of the sharded-network? Do we stop trusting the consensus and trust the other nodes that have the other part of the sharded-network? To what benefit?
Yerify doesn t mean anything - you can verify what your e-Banking client shows - and go moaning about
If you re out of sync and behind mining nodes you re even more in the sybil regime
only miners make blocks and if they don't verify they ll lose money
But still, where comes the real trust from - if there is at all ? From all the little anno sybils ?
Less storage and less bandwidth than now but control of emission is still maintained.
That didn't make any sense.
User verifies all transactions in his shard to ensure that no extra coins are injected by miners - control of emission.
You said that miners/stakers are required to have all the shards. That is NOT sharding, and it makes a full node lesser than what it is in a non-sharded network.
We don't care about miners' wishes and requirements, through competition they will bear any block size as long as it brings in profit. Shards are created to accommodate reduced storage and bandwidth capacity of users.
These shards are detached from each other, basically being independent currencies. But it's not something unheard of, throughout history people have been operating in parallel standards - gold, silver, copper. In the USA there were multiple coins before establishment of the Federal Reserve. Even now people in borderline zones carry two or three sorts of banknotes in their wallets. So if a technically sound and scalable solution could long-term stop corruption and legalized theft then I would say these conversions between independent currencies/shards would look like minor inconvenience.
That doesn't change anything except make "full nodes" mean less than what they are in a non-sharded network.
Plus the complexity for what benefit? Do we stop trusting the consensus, and start trusting each node?
This is the best rabbit whole, where actually comes the trust from...
I believe you misunderstood. mda was posting about the miners having all blocks in a sharded-network, but "full nodes" having only to verify "their part" of the sharded-network? Do we stop trusting the consensus and trust the other nodes that have the other part of the sharded-network? To what benefit?
In terms of performance, any P2P network that produces a single chain of blocks is not really a network.
It's a single computer in fact.
Because it can perfectly run on a single node, and adding more nodes brings no performance gain at all.
But if we don't just look at performance and want security and decentralization, then a P2P network (a kind of distributed system) is indispensable, obviously...
Adding more nodes improves decentralization (three is the lowest number required) although the marginal benefit gain decreases rapidly.
In terms of security benefits seem to be proportional to the number of nodes.
It's a single computer in fact.
Because it can perfectly run on a single node, and adding more nodes brings no performance gain at all.
But if we don't just look at performance and want security and decentralization, then a P2P network (a kind of distributed system) is indispensable, obviously...
Adding more nodes improves decentralization (three is the lowest number required) although the marginal benefit gain decreases rapidly.
In terms of security benefits seem to be proportional to the number of nodes.
Less storage and less bandwidth than now but control of emission is still maintained.
That didn't make any sense.
User verifies all transactions in his shard to ensure that no extra coins are injected by miners - control of emission.
You said that miners/stakers are required to have all the shards. That is NOT sharding, and it makes a full node lesser than what it is in a non-sharded network.
We don't care about miners' wishes and requirements, through competition they will bear any block size as long as it brings in profit. Shards are created to accommodate reduced storage and bandwidth capacity of users.
These shards are detached from each other, basically being independent currencies. But it's not something unheard of, throughout history people have been operating in parallel standards - gold, silver, copper. In the USA there were multiple coins before establishment of the Federal Reserve. Even now people in borderline zones carry two or three sorts of banknotes in their wallets. So if a technically sound and scalable solution could long-term stop corruption and legalized theft then I would say these conversions between independent currencies/shards would look like minor inconvenience.
That doesn't change anything except make "full nodes" mean less than what they are in a non-sharded network.
Plus the complexity for what benefit? Do we stop trusting the consensus, and start trusting each node?
This is the best rabbit whole, where actually comes the trust from...
The distribution is just a model, that doesn't hold in real world as it gives full trust.
We have small , slow players and a few big ones. What is about now?
Less storage and less bandwidth than now but control of emission is still maintained.
That didn't make any sense.
User verifies all transactions in his shard to ensure that no extra coins are injected by miners - control of emission.
You said that miners/stakers are required to have all the shards. That is NOT sharding, and it makes a full node lesser than what it is in a non-sharded network.
We don't care about miners' wishes and requirements, through competition they will bear any block size as long as it brings in profit. Shards are created to accommodate reduced storage and bandwidth capacity of users.
These shards are detached from each other, basically being independent currencies. But it's not something unheard of, throughout history people have been operating in parallel standards - gold, silver, copper. In the USA there were multiple coins before establishment of the Federal Reserve. Even now people in borderline zones carry two or three sorts of banknotes in their wallets. So if a technically sound and scalable solution could long-term stop corruption and legalized theft then I would say these conversions between independent currencies/shards would look like minor inconvenience.
That doesn't change anything except make "full nodes" mean less than what they are in a non-sharded network.
Plus the complexity for what benefit? Do we stop trusting the consensus, and start trusting each node?
Less storage and less bandwidth than now but control of emission is still maintained.
That didn't make any sense.
User verifies all transactions in his shard to ensure that no extra coins are injected by miners - control of emission.
You said that miners/stakers are required to have all the shards. That is NOT sharding, and it makes a full node lesser than what it is in a non-sharded network.
We don't care about miners' wishes and requirements, through competition they will bear any block size as long as it brings in profit. Shards are created to accommodate reduced storage and bandwidth capacity of users.
These shards are detached from each other, basically being independent currencies. But it's not something unheard of, throughout history people have been operating in parallel standards - gold, silver, copper. In the USA there were multiple coins before establishment of the Federal Reserve. Even now people in borderline zones carry two or three sorts of banknotes in their wallets. So if a technically sound and scalable solution could long-term stop corruption and legalized theft then I would say these conversions between independent currencies/shards would look like minor inconvenience.
But what you posted DIDN'T maintain decentralization, it simply redefined a non-mining full node to be lesser than in a non-sharded network.
Less storage and less bandwidth than now but control of emission is still maintained.
That didn't make any sense.
Quote
Think of these shards as cloned altcoins with shared (and very high) hashrate.
You said that miners/stakers are required to have all the shards. That is NOT sharding, and it makes a full node lesser than what it is in a non-sharded network.
But what you posted DIDN'T maintain decentralization, it simply redefined a non-mining full node to be lesser than in a non-sharded network.
Less storage and less bandwidth than now but control of emission is still maintained. Think of these shards as cloned altcoins with shared (and very high) hashrate.
All shards? Doesn't that NOT change anything except make a non-mining "full node" less than what is in a "non-sharded" blockchain?
Yes, that and 1000x bigger transaction throughput, and 100x bigger market cap. All while security and decentralization stay unchanged.
But I guess the masses don't care much about security nor decentralization.
masses who don't care about decentralization and security also don't care about cryptocurrencies and instead stick to their banks and other centralized alternatives. this is exactly why every centralized altcoin so far has failed over the long run.
in any case could you give us an example of sharding that is currently handling 1000x bigger transaction throughput?
All shards? Doesn't that NOT change anything except make a non-mining "full node" less than what is in a "non-sharded" blockchain?
Yes, that and 1000x bigger transaction throughput, and 100x bigger market cap. All while security and decentralization stay unchanged.
I'm sorry, but now I believe you are just shitposting.
Quote
But I guess the masses don't care much about security nor decentralization.
But what you posted DIDN'T maintain decentralization, it simply redefined a non-mining full node to be lesser than in a non-sharded network.
All shards? Doesn't that NOT change anything except make a non-mining "full node" less than what is in a "non-sharded" blockchain?
Yes, that and 1000x bigger transaction throughput, and 100x bigger market cap. All while security and decentralization stay unchanged.
But I guess the masses don't care much about security nor decentralization.
Curious. What cryptocurrency has implemented sharding successfully, and how does transfer of value happen between shards?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/sharding-strategy-held-together-by-atomic-swaps-5109561
None has implemented it though, otherwise BTLightning would have already crashed.
Because what I want to know is, if miners/stakers are required to have all the shards, or trust their peers for the integrity of each shard?
Miners mine all shards, users verify few, one or none.
All shards? Doesn't that NOT change anything except make a non-mining "full node" less than what is in a "non-sharded" blockchain?
it is the distribution of "power" not distribution of "load". the power to make decisions, enforce rules, keep the employees (eg. miners) in line with those rules,... the fact that each node does all of this on its own means they are not relying on anybody else and make their own decisions hence keeping the network decentralized.
Great answer.
I think the next step in blockchains is distributing load - storage, CPU, network, etc. in a fair and trustless way, while maintaining the distribution in power. Blockchains such as bitcoin are vastly over-redundant.
But it has to be.
it is the distribution of "power" not distribution of "load". the power to make decisions, enforce rules, keep the employees (eg. miners) in line with those rules,... the fact that each node does all of this on its own means they are not relying on anybody else and make their own decisions hence keeping the network decentralized.
Great answer.
I think the next step in blockchains is distributing load - storage, CPU, network, etc. in a fair and trustless way, while maintaining the distribution in power. Blockchains such as bitcoin are vastly over-redundant.
Curious. What cryptocurrency has implemented sharding successfully, and how does transfer of value happen between shards?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/sharding-strategy-held-together-by-atomic-swaps-5109561
None has implemented it though, otherwise BTLightning would have already crashed.
Because what I want to know is, if miners/stakers are required to have all the shards, or trust their peers for the integrity of each shard?
Miners mine all shards, users verify few, one or none.
Maybe sharding is what you're looking for since each nodes only verify and store some transaction/block.
Curious. What cryptocurrency has implemented sharding successfully, and how does transfer of value happen between shards?There are few cryptocurrency which claim using sharding such as Ziliqa (ZIL), but i never check the implementation in details.
Because what I want to know is, if miners/stakers are required to have all the shards, or trust their peers for the integrity of each shard?
it is the distribution of "power" not distribution of "load". the power to make decisions, enforce rules, keep the employees (eg. miners) in line with those rules,... the fact that each node does all of this on its own means they are not relying on anybody else and make their own decisions hence keeping the network decentralized.
I'm talking about "blockchain" classified as a sub-group under DLT, or "Distributed Ledger Technology", not the "blockchain governance" side of it.
Replication distributed system might describe better characteristic blockchain where all nodes do same thing (store same data, have identical/compatible rules, etc.).
Maybe sharding is what you're looking for since each nodes only verify and store some transaction/block.
Maybe sharding is what you're looking for since each nodes only verify and store some transaction/block.
Curious. What cryptocurrency has implemented sharding successfully, and how does transfer of value happen between shards?
it is the distribution of "power" not distribution of "load". the power to make decisions, enforce rules, keep the employees (eg. miners) in line with those rules,... the fact that each node does all of this on its own means they are not relying on anybody else and make their own decisions hence keeping the network decentralized.
A distributed system has characteristics that include redundancy and autonomy. Anyway, debating the definition of "distributed" has little benefit.
But the main understanding for distributed systems is "distributed load". Blockchain networks doesn't distribute load, it actually does it the reverse way because every node validates, and re-validates all transactions/messages.
I was merely curious. Sorry if it's a stupid question.
A distributed system has characteristics that include redundancy and autonomy. Anyway, debating the definition of "distributed" has little benefit.
Yes? But in a "distributed blockchain network", it might the the opposite of "distributed", because every node must validate every participant's transactions/messages, taking the processing by themselves.
Have we misunderstood what it truly is?
Have we misunderstood what it truly is?
Jump to: