-snip-
By node, OP probably mean miner.
By node, OP probably mean miner.
Soooo whats a "Superminer"?
A big pool owner like GHash.IO is a super miner
Topic: What happens when major banks become supernodes? - page 2. (Read 1926 times)
Soooo whats a "Superminer"?
A big pool owner like GHash.IO is a super miner
-snip-
By node, OP probably mean miner.
By node, OP probably mean miner.
Soooo whats a "Superminer"?
What exactly do you mean by a supernode? Never heard of the term...
If you're talking about the banks having a crap ton of nodes I don't really see an issue so long as there are a reasonable number of other nodes so that there is no foul play with transaction exclusion. But really it's unlikely that the banks will bother with large amounts of nodes - they only serve to relay and confirm transactions as legitimate.
If you're talking about the banks having a crap ton of nodes I don't really see an issue so long as there are a reasonable number of other nodes so that there is no foul play with transaction exclusion. But really it's unlikely that the banks will bother with large amounts of nodes - they only serve to relay and confirm transactions as legitimate.
A bank running a lot of nodes would be like a bank providing services for the competition for free. Unless that bank makes money off bitcoin in some other way it does not make sense.
Banks will want no part of it until they're left with no customers and no choices, and then they'll capitulate.
By node, OP probably mean miner.
What exactly do you mean by a supernode? Never heard of the term...
If you're talking about the banks having a crap ton of nodes I don't really see an issue so long as there are a reasonable number of other nodes so that there is no foul play with transaction exclusion. But really it's unlikely that the banks will bother with large amounts of nodes - they only serve to relay and confirm transactions as legitimate.
If you're talking about the banks having a crap ton of nodes I don't really see an issue so long as there are a reasonable number of other nodes so that there is no foul play with transaction exclusion. But really it's unlikely that the banks will bother with large amounts of nodes - they only serve to relay and confirm transactions as legitimate.
A bank running a lot of nodes would be like a bank providing services for the competition for free. Unless that bank makes money off bitcoin in some other way it does not make sense.
Banks will want no part of it until they're left with no customers and no choices, and then they'll capitulate.
What exactly do you mean by a supernode? Never heard of the term...
If you're talking about the banks having a crap ton of nodes I don't really see an issue so long as there are a reasonable number of other nodes so that there is no foul play with transaction exclusion. But really it's unlikely that the banks will bother with large amounts of nodes - they only serve to relay and confirm transactions as legitimate.
If you're talking about the banks having a crap ton of nodes I don't really see an issue so long as there are a reasonable number of other nodes so that there is no foul play with transaction exclusion. But really it's unlikely that the banks will bother with large amounts of nodes - they only serve to relay and confirm transactions as legitimate.
A bank running a lot of nodes would be like a bank providing services for the competition for free. Unless that bank makes money off bitcoin in some other way it does not make sense.
What exactly do you mean by a supernode? Never heard of the term...
If you're talking about the banks having a crap ton of nodes I don't really see an issue so long as there are a reasonable number of other nodes so that there is no foul play with transaction exclusion. But really it's unlikely that the banks will bother with large amounts of nodes - they only serve to relay and confirm transactions as legitimate.
If you're talking about the banks having a crap ton of nodes I don't really see an issue so long as there are a reasonable number of other nodes so that there is no foul play with transaction exclusion. But really it's unlikely that the banks will bother with large amounts of nodes - they only serve to relay and confirm transactions as legitimate.
Will this be a good thing? Adapt and survive right?
Jump to: