PoW is not what makes Bitcoin secure

FreeStreamer

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 15

Quote from: Wind_FURY on July 25, 2020, 01:06:53 AM

Quote from: FreeStreamer on July 24, 2020, 01:55:49 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on July 24, 2020, 04:35:10 AM

Quote from: FreeStreamer on July 24, 2020, 01:41:06 AM

Quote from: NurAzizahhh on July 23, 2020, 09:30:16 PM

So far I interpreted that what you mean is 'difficulty attacking the network' as a measure but after this post I think you are referring to the Bitcoin market, Can you explain how the number of people holding bitcoin or the price of bitcoin makes the Bitcoin network safe?
Now I am really interested in understanding your context using the word 'size'.
not just functionality. This is definitely a security feature. This helps maintain the decentralized transaction recording process in the blockchain

It's not the number of people holding bitcoin. It's Bitcoins enormous hashrate. The attacker would have to hijack 51% of the hashrate and that is simply too costly as he needs the hardware and electricity to produce that 51% of the current hashrate.

In theory, some people claim that more than 51% of all hashing power is already controlled by miners from China.

It's the game theory that's securing the network. Why would they endanger their position, by being thrown out of the network, by an army of full nodes for a double-spend?

Yes this is true.

No debate? I'm disappointed.

Quote

I think this is one reason why there is an attack on Bitcoin in USA. The Trump administration doesn't like it probably because of this reason. It's not very patriotic. Bitfinex and Tether are run by a Dutch guy who lives in Hong Kong. Blockstream's British CEO Adam Back lives on Malta and the parent company AXA group is a French insurance company. So the main players with Bitcoin seem to be scattered around the globe in different tax havens. Monero however had the ASIC resistance going on. China is the only country in the world that manufactures ASIC miners, so I think the purpose there was actually to block China from becoming a majority hash contributor to Monero as well.

Who said that Bitcoin was supposed to be for the U.S PRESIDENT, and for the U.S. GOVERNMENT? The honey-badger don't care, and the Fed's Brrr printing of $6,000,000,000,000 will play a part in Bitcoin's path to 6 digits.

Nobody said that, but It's obvious that it's a globalist plan to subvert national institutions. Also from my libertarian P2P, decentralization and digital rights activist point of view it's actually not very adequate.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: FreeStreamer on July 24, 2020, 01:55:49 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on July 24, 2020, 04:35:10 AM

Quote from: FreeStreamer on July 24, 2020, 01:41:06 AM

Quote from: NurAzizahhh on July 23, 2020, 09:30:16 PM

So far I interpreted that what you mean is 'difficulty attacking the network' as a measure but after this post I think you are referring to the Bitcoin market, Can you explain how the number of people holding bitcoin or the price of bitcoin makes the Bitcoin network safe?
Now I am really interested in understanding your context using the word 'size'.
not just functionality. This is definitely a security feature. This helps maintain the decentralized transaction recording process in the blockchain

It's not the number of people holding bitcoin. It's Bitcoins enormous hashrate. The attacker would have to hijack 51% of the hashrate and that is simply too costly as he needs the hardware and electricity to produce that 51% of the current hashrate.

In theory, some people claim that more than 51% of all hashing power is already controlled by miners from China.

It's the game theory that's securing the network. Why would they endanger their position, by being thrown out of the network, by an army of full nodes for a double-spend?

Yes this is true.

No debate? I'm disappointed.

Quote

I think this is one reason why there is an attack on Bitcoin in USA. The Trump administration doesn't like it probably because of this reason. It's not very patriotic. Bitfinex and Tether are run by a Dutch guy who lives in Hong Kong. Blockstream's British CEO Adam Back lives on Malta and the parent company AXA group is a French insurance company. So the main players with Bitcoin seem to be scattered around the globe in different tax havens. Monero however had the ASIC resistance going on. China is the only country in the world that manufactures ASIC miners, so I think the purpose there was actually to block China from becoming a majority hash contributor to Monero as well.

Who said that Bitcoin was supposed to be for the U.S PRESIDENT, and for the U.S. GOVERNMENT? The honey-badger don't care, and the Fed's Brrr printing of $6,000,000,000,000 will play a part in Bitcoin's path to 6 digits.

FreeStreamer

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 15

Quote from: Wind_FURY on July 24, 2020, 04:35:10 AM

Quote from: FreeStreamer on July 24, 2020, 01:41:06 AM

Quote from: NurAzizahhh on July 23, 2020, 09:30:16 PM

So far I interpreted that what you mean is 'difficulty attacking the network' as a measure but after this post I think you are referring to the Bitcoin market, Can you explain how the number of people holding bitcoin or the price of bitcoin makes the Bitcoin network safe?
Now I am really interested in understanding your context using the word 'size'.
not just functionality. This is definitely a security feature. This helps maintain the decentralized transaction recording process in the blockchain

It's not the number of people holding bitcoin. It's Bitcoins enormous hashrate. The attacker would have to hijack 51% of the hashrate and that is simply too costly as he needs the hardware and electricity to produce that 51% of the current hashrate.

In theory, some people claim that more than 51% of all hashing power is already controlled by miners from China.

It's the game theory that's securing the network. Why would they endanger their position, by being thrown out of the network, by an army of full nodes for a double-spend?

Yes this is true. I think this is one reason why there is an attack on Bitcoin in USA. The Trump administration doesn't like it probably because of this reason. It's not very patriotic. Bitfinex and Tether are run by a Dutch guy who lives in Hong Kong. Blockstream's British CEO Adam Back lives on Malta and the parent company AXA group is a French insurance company. So the main players with Bitcoin seem to be scattered around the globe in different tax havens. Monero however had the ASIC resistance going on. China is the only country in the world that manufactures ASIC miners, so I think the purpose there was actually to block China from becoming a majority hash contributor to Monero as well.

FreeStreamer

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 15

Quote from: aundroid on July 24, 2020, 03:51:13 AM

Quote from: FreeStreamer on July 23, 2020, 10:28:28 AM

Let me help you. A mining pool is not same as a miner merger. Pools are not static. It's still decentralized anonymous. The pools do not control the miners and the hashrate the miners control it and Moneros miners are independent anonymous people and not merged as a corporation with CEO like Blockstream.

Of course there is a difference between pool centralization and hardware centralization.
But although the pools don't control the hardware, they do control the hashrate. (until the miners switch to a different pool)
What you can clearly see with Monero is pool centralization, new miners apparently tend to join the largest pool.
Hardware centralization is a different problem.

Yes, Bitcoin is hardware centralized with most miners being governed by Blockstream corporation. In Monero any miner is free to switch pool at any time or start their own pool. Pools have really nothing to do with centralization. Pools do not control or govern anything. They are just pools. Centralization means to be placed under one central governance. So as long as there is two pools and people are free to switch, there is no centralization going on there. The larger the pool the smaller fees it has, that's why people join large pools.

jpnl0006

jr. member

Activity: 480

Merit: 4

Quote from: JeromeTash on July 20, 2020, 05:58:19 PM

Quote from: FreeStreamer on July 20, 2020, 04:23:53 PM

I had many comments saying that the Proof-of-Work algorithm is what makes Bitcoin secure and resist the 51% attack. This is not true. What makes Bitcoin practically resilient to the 51% attack is its size. Because of Bitcoins size it's extremely expensive to perform this attack and therefore nobody will likely do it. But also because of Bitcoins size and because it doesn't really scale, it's very slow. Also Proof-of-Work algorithm is still very susceptible to the 51% attack.

So what's you point here Huh

If the Bitcoin network is large, shouldn't that be good news?
What's the point of decentralization then?
I don't see any point you are trying to make here except shill a less popular Monero. If you wanna discuss Monero, head over to the altcoins discussion board.

Quote from: FreeStreamer on July 20, 2020, 04:23:53 PM

Monero is basically everything Bitcoin promised to be.

What did bitcoin promise to be?

Exactly my point. i couldn't pick out the exact point. reading the topic and checking out what was said. to summarise, bitcoin is the realm deal whether or not there is 51% attack or not, Bitcoin still remains the First mover of the blockchain technology and also the Secured network i know about.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: FreeStreamer on July 24, 2020, 01:41:06 AM

Quote from: NurAzizahhh on July 23, 2020, 09:30:16 PM

So far I interpreted that what you mean is 'difficulty attacking the network' as a measure but after this post I think you are referring to the Bitcoin market, Can you explain how the number of people holding bitcoin or the price of bitcoin makes the Bitcoin network safe?
Now I am really interested in understanding your context using the word 'size'.
not just functionality. This is definitely a security feature. This helps maintain the decentralized transaction recording process in the blockchain

It's not the number of people holding bitcoin. It's Bitcoins enormous hashrate. The attacker would have to hijack 51% of the hashrate and that is simply too costly as he needs the hardware and electricity to produce that 51% of the current hashrate.

In theory, some people claim that more than 51% of all hashing power is already controlled by miners from China.

It's the game theory that's securing the network. Why would they endanger their position, by being thrown out of the network, by an army of full nodes for a double-spend?

aundroid

legendary

Activity: 1232

Merit: 1255

Quote from: FreeStreamer on July 23, 2020, 10:28:28 AM

Let me help you. A mining pool is not same as a miner merger. Pools are not static. It's still decentralized anonymous. The pools do not control the miners and the hashrate the miners control it and Moneros miners are independent anonymous people and not merged as a corporation with CEO like Blockstream.

Of course there is a difference between pool centralization and hardware centralization.
But although the pools don't control the hardware, they do control the hashrate. (until the miners switch to a different pool)
What you can clearly see with Monero is pool centralization, new miners apparently tend to join the largest pool.
Hardware centralization is a different problem.

FreeStreamer

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 15

Quote from: NurAzizahhh on July 23, 2020, 09:30:16 PM

So far I interpreted that what you mean is 'difficulty attacking the network' as a measure but after this post I think you are referring to the Bitcoin market, Can you explain how the number of people holding bitcoin or the price of bitcoin makes the Bitcoin network safe?
Now I am really interested in understanding your context using the word 'size'.
not just functionality. This is definitely a security feature. This helps maintain the decentralized transaction recording process in the blockchain

It's not the number of people holding bitcoin. It's Bitcoins enormous hashrate. The attacker would have to hijack 51% of the hashrate and that is simply too costly as he needs the hardware and electricity to produce that 51% of the current hashrate.

NurAzizahhh

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

So far I interpreted that what you mean is 'difficulty attacking the network' as a measure but after this post I think you are referring to the Bitcoin market, Can you explain how the number of people holding bitcoin or the price of bitcoin makes the Bitcoin network safe?
Now I am really interested in understanding your context using the word 'size'.
not just functionality. This is definitely a security feature. This helps maintain the decentralized transaction recording process in the blockchain

FreeStreamer

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 15

Quote from: aundroid on July 23, 2020, 04:30:40 AM

Quote from: FreeStreamer on July 23, 2020, 03:37:33 AM

Monero is also large enough and on top of that it's a decentralized peer-to-peer digital cash. Bitcoin is not. Bitcoin has not been consistent with Satoshis original vision since 2014 when Blockstream corporation was formed by Bitcoin miners.

Sorry but in the Monero network the two largest mining pools control 67% of the total Hashrate.

source

How is that more decentralized than Bitcoin?

Again: I have nothing against Monero, I just don't understand what you are trying to achieve here.

Let me help you. A mining pool is not same as a miner merger. Pools are not static. It's still decentralized anonymous. The pools do not control the miners and the hashrate the miners control it and Moneros miners are independent anonymous people and not merged as a corporation with CEO like Blockstream.

aundroid

legendary

Activity: 1232

Merit: 1255

Quote from: FreeStreamer on July 23, 2020, 03:37:33 AM

Monero is also large enough and on top of that it's a decentralized peer-to-peer digital cash. Bitcoin is not. Bitcoin has not been consistent with Satoshis original vision since 2014 when Blockstream corporation was formed by Bitcoin miners.

Sorry but in the Monero network the two largest mining pools control 67% of the total Hashrate.

source

How is that more decentralized than Bitcoin?

Again: I have nothing against Monero, I just don't understand what you are trying to achieve here.

FreeStreamer

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 15

Quote from: aundroid on July 22, 2020, 03:41:29 PM

Quote from: FreeStreamer on July 22, 2020, 02:34:50 PM

I mean size measured in hashrate. You see 51% attack means hijacking the majority of the networks hashrate and gaining control of the network that way. The hardware and electricity needed to perform this has to match 51% of the networks hashrate. So you would have to buy like a 100 000 ASIC miners that would consume a crazy amount of electricity just to perform the attack for one hour.

Well, that is exactly what I told you on the first page.

Quote from: aundroid on July 21, 2020, 04:20:34 PM

You might also want to look at sites like https://www.crypto51.app/ or https://www.exaking.com/51 to have a look at the theoretical costs of a 51% attack.
Bitcoin: between $400,000 and $550,000 an hour. (no idea which side delivers the more exact value)
Monero: $21,000 per hour

I still don't understand what you are trying to tell us with this thread?
You simply told us that PoW chains are vulnerable to 51% attacks and then you pointed to Monero, which is also PoW. Wink

Quote from: FreeStreamer on July 22, 2020, 02:02:04 AM

Yes. I am saying that only large enough PoW blockchains are technically resistant to the 51% attack.

Then maybe you should take a closer look into Bitcoin. Cheesy

Monero is also large enough and on top of that it's a decentralized peer-to-peer digital cash. Bitcoin is not. Bitcoin has not been consistent with Satoshis original vision since 2014 when Blockstream corporation was formed by Bitcoin miners.

aundroid

legendary

Activity: 1232

Merit: 1255

Quote from: FreeStreamer on July 22, 2020, 02:34:50 PM

I mean size measured in hashrate. You see 51% attack means hijacking the majority of the networks hashrate and gaining control of the network that way. The hardware and electricity needed to perform this has to match 51% of the networks hashrate. So you would have to buy like a 100 000 ASIC miners that would consume a crazy amount of electricity just to perform the attack for one hour.

Well, that is exactly what I told you on the first page.

Quote from: aundroid on July 21, 2020, 04:20:34 PM

You might also want to look at sites like https://www.crypto51.app/ or https://www.exaking.com/51 to have a look at the theoretical costs of a 51% attack.
Bitcoin: between $400,000 and $550,000 an hour. (no idea which side delivers the more exact value)
Monero: $21,000 per hour

I still don't understand what you are trying to tell us with this thread?
You simply told us that PoW chains are vulnerable to 51% attacks and then you pointed to Monero, which is also PoW. Wink

Quote from: FreeStreamer on July 22, 2020, 02:02:04 AM

Yes. I am saying that only large enough PoW blockchains are technically resistant to the 51% attack.

Then maybe you should take a closer look into Bitcoin. Cheesy

FreeStreamer

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 15

Quote from: franky1 on July 22, 2020, 01:29:05 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on July 22, 2020, 01:49:39 AM

Quote from: pooya87 on July 21, 2020, 11:17:20 PM

Quote from: franky1 on July 21, 2020, 09:18:44 PM

i know the OP is just trying to promote a crappy proof of stake coin

i guess you didn't read the entire post. OP is comparing bitcoin with monero and last time i checked monero is using RandomX algorithm which is a proof of work type of algorithm. his arguments don't have much to do with PoW either, he is mostly focusing on anonymity which he refers to as "privacy"!

He read it, but franky1 is a gaslighter. I believe he thinks that he can gaslight lurking newbies to be tricked into believing that Monero is POS.

OP, you never replied. Full nodes secure Bitcoin.

i guess you didnt read the OP's post history.
he loves monero and other altcoins of different 'proofs'. which is a typical mindset of the PoS stake crowd try to imply bad things about PoW , which they dont understand.. just so they can advertise their favourite alt.

he isnt limiting his admiration of altcoins to just being monero
so you might want to realise that his sentiment and context is of the tradition PoS tactic to then advertise their favourite alt.

so while you lot try to grammar check if i said W or S or B at the end of Po' your missing the point
he doesnt understand bitcoin or how the PoW gives bitcoin underlying value. his main game is to advertise his favourite altcoin

but hey. seems its the grammar NAZI's that had more reference to lighting gas

Why don't you read them little bit better before you start your slandering and smearing campaigns people with honorable intentions who just want to have an intellectual open minded conversation. I don't think it's a sacrilege to discuss new alternative proof algorithm. Personally I think they will take over because they actually produce value. Not only a self serving simple network functionality like Bitcoins ledger. Have a topic which says PoS is a scam.

FreeStreamer

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 15

Quote from: webtricks on July 22, 2020, 09:55:22 AM

Quote from: FreeStreamer on July 22, 2020, 09:39:09 AM

Quote from: webtricks on July 22, 2020, 08:54:09 AM

Quote from: FreeStreamer on July 20, 2020, 04:23:53 PM

I had many comments saying that the Proof-of-Work algorithm is what makes Bitcoin secure and resist the 51% attack. This is not true. What makes Bitcoin practically resilient to the 51% attack is its size. Because of Bitcoins size it's extremely expensive to perform this attack and therefore nobody will likely do it.

You are contradicting yourself. At one side you are saying that Proof-of-Work doesn't make Bitcoin secure. While on the other side you are saying, size of Bitcoin network make it resilient to 51% attack. So why do you think Bitcoin's size is big enough to resist 51% attack? Simple! That's because of Proof-of-Work algorithm!

Due to the huge number of miners over years, mining difficulty has reached to a very very high level. Now to mine block, miner has to use very high computing power in order to find the hash. So it's enormously costly for anyone to first manipulate existing block and then mine more on top of that to broadcast longest valid chain on network. So in short, PoW algorithm is the only thing making sure Bitcoin's blockchain is not getting easily manipulated.

I am not contradicting. It's not large because of Proof-of-Work algorithm. It's large because of the major pumps and hype that occurred 2017-2018. Proof-of-Work algorithm validates the transactions without the need of a trusted 3rd party. It's not a network security feature. It's the networks functionality. it's the only thing that Bitcoin actually does, which is not that special and it does not make Bitcoin a magical money making machine.

Now I am really interested in understanding your context of using the word 'size'. So far I was interpreting that you meant 'the difficulty of attacking network' as the size but after this post I think you are referring to the Bitcoin market and holders as the 'size'. Can you explain how the number of people holding bitcoins or the price of bitcoin make the Bitcoin network secure?

Also, PoW is not just functionality. It is surely a security feature. It helps in keeping the process of recording transactions in blockchain decentralized as well as save Bitcoin Network from attack.

I mean size measured in hashrate. You see 51% attack means hijacking the majority of the networks hashrate and gaining control of the network that way. The hardware and electricity needed to perform this has to match 51% of the networks hashrate. So you would have to buy like a 100 000 ASIC miners that would consume a crazy amount of electricity just to perform the attack for one hour.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

Quote from: Wind_FURY on July 22, 2020, 01:49:39 AM

Quote from: pooya87 on July 21, 2020, 11:17:20 PM

Quote from: franky1 on July 21, 2020, 09:18:44 PM

i know the OP is just trying to promote a crappy proof of stake coin

i guess you didn't read the entire post. OP is comparing bitcoin with monero and last time i checked monero is using RandomX algorithm which is a proof of work type of algorithm. his arguments don't have much to do with PoW either, he is mostly focusing on anonymity which he refers to as "privacy"!

He read it, but franky1 is a gaslighter. I believe he thinks that he can gaslight lurking newbies to be tricked into believing that Monero is POS.

OP, you never replied. Full nodes secure Bitcoin.

i guess you didnt read the OP's post history.
he loves monero and other altcoins of different 'proofs'. which is a typical mindset of the PoS stake crowd try to imply bad things about PoW , which they dont understand.. just so they can advertise their favourite alt.

he isnt limiting his admiration of altcoins to just being monero
so you might want to realise that his sentiment and context is of the tradition PoS tactic to then advertise their favourite alt.

so while you lot try to grammar check if i said W or S or B at the end of Po' your missing the point
he doesnt understand bitcoin or how the PoW gives bitcoin underlying value. his main game is to advertise his favourite altcoin

but hey. seems its the grammar NAZI's that had more reference to lighting gas

webtricks

legendary

Activity: 1918

Merit: 1728

Quote from: FreeStreamer on July 22, 2020, 09:39:09 AM

Quote from: webtricks on July 22, 2020, 08:54:09 AM

Quote from: FreeStreamer on July 20, 2020, 04:23:53 PM

I had many comments saying that the Proof-of-Work algorithm is what makes Bitcoin secure and resist the 51% attack. This is not true. What makes Bitcoin practically resilient to the 51% attack is its size. Because of Bitcoins size it's extremely expensive to perform this attack and therefore nobody will likely do it.

You are contradicting yourself. At one side you are saying that Proof-of-Work doesn't make Bitcoin secure. While on the other side you are saying, size of Bitcoin network make it resilient to 51% attack. So why do you think Bitcoin's size is big enough to resist 51% attack? Simple! That's because of Proof-of-Work algorithm!

Due to the huge number of miners over years, mining difficulty has reached to a very very high level. Now to mine block, miner has to use very high computing power in order to find the hash. So it's enormously costly for anyone to first manipulate existing block and then mine more on top of that to broadcast longest valid chain on network. So in short, PoW algorithm is the only thing making sure Bitcoin's blockchain is not getting easily manipulated.

I am not contradicting. It's not large because of Proof-of-Work algorithm. It's large because of the major pumps and hype that occurred 2017-2018. Proof-of-Work algorithm validates the transactions without the need of a trusted 3rd party. It's not a network security feature. It's the networks functionality. it's the only thing that Bitcoin actually does, which is not that special and it does not make Bitcoin a magical money making machine.

Now I am really interested in understanding your context of using the word 'size'. So far I was interpreting that you meant 'the difficulty of attacking network' as the size but after this post I think you are referring to the Bitcoin market and holders as the 'size'. Can you explain how the number of people holding bitcoins or the price of bitcoin make the Bitcoin network secure?

Also, PoW is not just functionality. It is surely a security feature. It helps in keeping the process of recording transactions in blockchain decentralized as well as save Bitcoin Network from attack.

FreeStreamer

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 15

Quote from: webtricks on July 22, 2020, 08:54:09 AM

Quote from: FreeStreamer on July 20, 2020, 04:23:53 PM

I had many comments saying that the Proof-of-Work algorithm is what makes Bitcoin secure and resist the 51% attack. This is not true. What makes Bitcoin practically resilient to the 51% attack is its size. Because of Bitcoins size it's extremely expensive to perform this attack and therefore nobody will likely do it.

You are contradicting yourself. At one side you are saying that Proof-of-Work doesn't make Bitcoin secure. While on the other side you are saying, size of Bitcoin network make it resilient to 51% attack. So why do you think Bitcoin's size is big enough to resist 51% attack? Simple! That's because of Proof-of-Work algorithm!

Due to the huge number of miners over years, mining difficulty has reached to a very very high level. Now to mine block, miner has to use very high computing power in order to find the hash. So it's enormously costly for anyone to first manipulate existing block and then mine more on top of that to broadcast longest valid chain on network. So in short, PoW algorithm is the only thing making sure Bitcoin's blockchain is not getting easily manipulated.

I am not contradicting. It's not large because of Proof-of-Work algorithm. It's large because of the major pumps and hype that occurred 2017-2018. Proof-of-Work algorithm validates the transactions without the need of a trusted 3rd party. It's not a network security feature. It's the networks functionality. it's the only thing that Bitcoin actually does, which is not that special and it does not make Bitcoin a magical money making machine.

webtricks

legendary

Activity: 1918

Merit: 1728

Quote from: FreeStreamer on July 20, 2020, 04:23:53 PM

I had many comments saying that the Proof-of-Work algorithm is what makes Bitcoin secure and resist the 51% attack. This is not true. What makes Bitcoin practically resilient to the 51% attack is its size. Because of Bitcoins size it's extremely expensive to perform this attack and therefore nobody will likely do it.

You are contradicting yourself. At one side you are saying that Proof-of-Work doesn't make Bitcoin secure. While on the other side you are saying, size of Bitcoin network make it resilient to 51% attack. So why do you think Bitcoin's size is big enough to resist 51% attack? Simple! That's because of Proof-of-Work algorithm!

Due to the huge number of miners over years, mining difficulty has reached to a very very high level. Now to mine block, miner has to use very high computing power in order to find the hash. So it's enormously costly for anyone to first manipulate existing block and then mine more on top of that to broadcast longest valid chain on network. So in short, PoW algorithm is the only thing making sure Bitcoin's blockchain is not getting easily manipulated.

FreeStreamer

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 15

Quote from: MarioV on July 22, 2020, 04:07:45 AM

So what makes bitcoin resistant to double spending? Isn't that computational and expensive (Po)Work that protects his ledger from breaking?

Yes, the PoW algorithm makes it resistant to double spending. This is what makes it not rely on any 3rd party as a trusted validator. That's basically the only thing that Bitcoin actually does. It's not that special and It's not a magic money machine that creates value out of thin air.

Topic: PoW is not what makes Bitcoin secure (Read 616 times)