In conclusion,Without replacing power smart contracts can act like Lightning Network.
I think it should be introduced to Bitcoin in the future.
Topic: smartcontract as an alternative to PoW (Read 375 times)
Put another chain
This chain is a chain of transactions by address
Belongs to the owner of the address
This chain is a chain of transactions by address
Belongs to the owner of the address
PoW should be abandoned even if the electricity it consumes is 100 percent clean.
This is also to protect it from quantum computers.
Restricting transactions further enhances security, which prevents excessive price fluctuations.
This is also to protect it from quantum computers.
Restricting transactions further enhances security, which prevents excessive price fluctuations.
Honestly, why don't you just write a thesis about your idea or directly write a full node software which uses your idea? That way, you'll understand weakness of your idea.
Some of attack towards Verge because programming bug, not 51% attack.
Other coins like ethereum classic, grin, Verge, some less-known forks of bitcoin have suffered from serious 51% attacks.
Some of attack towards Verge because programming bug, not 51% attack.
1. First of all, compared to PoW, it does not require a large amount of computing power, so the nodes are more distributed, so it seems difficult to attack.
However, I think we need to consider further defense.
2. It is assumed that the amount is the same as the remittance amount, but it has not been decided clearly.
The balance of the node is locked and it is done according to the smart contract, so the possibility of fraud is low.
However, I think we need to consider further defense.
2. It is assumed that the amount is the same as the remittance amount, but it has not been decided clearly.
The balance of the node is locked and it is done according to the smart contract, so the possibility of fraud is low.
Pow mining is rewarded, why use smart contracts? Is there no reward for using smart contracts? If it is a smart contract that replaces pow, it should be that all bitcoins have been mined.
Scuse me,
But there are many types of Smart Contracts?
As I have read about it, I guess so, but I am not sure, thank you
But there are many types of Smart Contracts?
As I have read about it, I guess so, but I am not sure, thank you
PoW should be abandoned even if the electricity it consumes is 100 percent clean.
Why should it? If the energy consumption was 100% clean, I believe that we'd have reached the maximum efficiency.This is also to protect it from quantum computers.
The quantum computing shouldn't consider the mechanism of coin production. If quantum computers ever become a thing just like it's being imagined, we can switch to a quantum safe proof of work algorithm and abandon SHA256d. Just a note, if quantum computers appeared out of nowhere right now, we'd have much bigger damage than you may think. The world should switch to alternative algorithms that are strong, including smart contracts. So, you should also change a consensus rule, despite the mechanism.
Restricting transactions further enhances security, which prevents excessive price fluctuations.
You mean censoring the transactions? I don't know about you, but I see Bitcoin as the perfect way for someone to transact huge amounts without having anyone's agreement. I would never use a cryptocurrency that is not censorship resistant.And no, by censoring transactions you don't prevent excessive price fluctuations.
All nodes.
How to decide which node creates the next block, AND how to protect from double spends, forks, Sybil attacks, and how to assure that every node in the network follows the real chain?
OP might be trolling, expect the topic to be deleted.
1. First of all, compared to PoW, it does not require a large amount of computing power, so the nodes are more distributed, so it seems difficult to attack.
If you can't explain how this mechanism will work, we won't be able to assist you. Smart contracts aren't going to work if there isn't a way to verify the transactions and prevent double spending. Sure, those contracts can help, but only if we there is a mechanism to build on.You probably haven't understood how a double-spending occurs and why mining is necessary. On a peer-to-peer network, there is no synchronization. Every node operates autonomously, meaning that the whole system is asynchronous. A node from America may receive a transaction 10 seconds after it's being received by a node in Europe. Without mining, within that time, I could spend the same output 2 times. I'd send the first transaction to one of the nodes and the other transaction to another. They'd keep sharing it with each other, until a node receives an invalid transaction that spends an already spent output. You can't know which output is correct and what's not if you don't have a chain that says itself what's right.
In the case above, some nodes of the network would have kept that the first output is the correct transaction and some others the second. Thus, I'd have double-spent the system.
1. First of all, compared to PoW, it does not require a large amount of computing power, so the nodes are more distributed, so it seems difficult to attack.
The computational power dedicated to the network is what keeps it safe. If you take that away, you take away the infrastructure that has protected it all these years. Bitcoin, because of its POW consensus algorithm, is the most expensive network to attack and maintain that attack for longer periods of time. Other coins like ethereum classic, grin, Verge, some less-known forks of bitcoin have suffered from serious 51% attacks.
If the majority of the network approves, there is nothing wrong with it, but if only a few approve, it is considered a fraudulent transaction.
What if the majority of the network approves and decides to allow for a transaction to be double spent? What happens then? In other words, the network is maintained when the node that approves the double payment pays it.
Are you talking about a penalty fee for the node that allowed the double spend to happen and what exactly is that node paying? Is the transaction still double spent? 2. Suppose you have double spending and some approvers on your network approve it. But if you don't approve the majority on the network, the approving node will pay for it.
Your whole concept is false if you don't explain to us how will the nodes approve. Somehow, the nodes must ensure that you aren't double spending money. To do that, they will all have to agree upon a ledger. To agree upon something, there has to be a proof. In PoW, the proof is computational and the transactions are added to blocks which they form a chain. What do you mean that the node will pay for it? For your transaction? Why would someone want that?
In other words, there is no problem even if double payment occurs.
How can you really say that? If a double payment occurs and it's confirmed, then the whole system is meaningless.Try posting this to your local board if you have a hard time with English.
Smart contracts typically are built on top of a blockchain. The blockchain would have a POW, or POS, or something else to secure the blockchain, and the smart contract would periodically settle on the blockchain according to the rules of the smart contract.
The OP suggestion is akin to saying that LN would be an alternative to POW. LN is great, and will improve bitcoin, but it is not something that will replace POW.
The OP suggestion is akin to saying that LN would be an alternative to POW. LN is great, and will improve bitcoin, but it is not something that will replace POW.
1,the sender secures the total balance and remits.
The sender secures the total balance and remits? What? This requires further explanation.2,If the transfer is not approved, it will be recorded in the chain as a contract.
If the transfer is not approved by who? The mechanism that could be used as an alternative to PoW is the one the approver will use. How could one node approve the transaction and prevent double-spending at the same time? In Bitcoin, there's a chain that speaks for itself with the proof of work. The longest chain is the one we'll all follow, otherwise one could double-spend. What's your proof here?There will be a many-worlds interpretive blockchain.
Amicably, but this doesn't make any sense. 
There will be a many-worlds interpretive blockchain.
I understand the translator isn't perfect but can you please try to explain what you are trying to say about "many-worlds interpretive blockchain"? I think you are saying that the blockchain should store all of the contracts which are unpaid, and also that it should store all the confirmed payments.
In other words, you have the unpaid transactions recorded on the blockchain too.
There is a problem with doing this, and it's that currently, to place any transaction on the blockchain a block has to be "mined" first. We cannot take out the mining process and instantly generate a block, or else all malicious users will do that too.
If this isn't your idea then please try to explain it more clearly.
There will be a many-worlds interpretive blockchain.
How is this going to guarantee that the blockchain cannot be modified?
For example, somebody could mine a block, and try to replace another block at the beginning of the blockchain with it, but they cannot do this because the entire chain will become invalid.
This is what PoW does.
Whereas smart contracts are for making different kinds of payments to different receipents, with different rules. These are two very different concepts.
For example, somebody could mine a block, and try to replace another block at the beginning of the blockchain with it, but they cannot do this because the entire chain will become invalid.
This is what PoW does.
Whereas smart contracts are for making different kinds of payments to different receipents, with different rules. These are two very different concepts.
In this case, who can create the block and include all transaction/smart contract (assuming blockchain is used)?
1,the sender secures the total balance and remits.
2,If the transfer is not approved, it will be recorded in the chain as a contract.
3,If the number of approvers is small, the approver will pay it instead.
(Therefore, the total balance of the approver is also secured.)
4,The amount reimbursed by the approver can be charged to the sender.
Finally I can't speak English.
2,If the transfer is not approved, it will be recorded in the chain as a contract.
3,If the number of approvers is small, the approver will pay it instead.
(Therefore, the total balance of the approver is also secured.)
4,The amount reimbursed by the approver can be charged to the sender.
Finally I can't speak English.
Jump to: