Topic: Why are broadcast checkpoints considered bad? (Read 459 times)
They are broadcasted from central server, so that is sort of ugly solution considering that cryptocurrency should aim to be as decentralized as possible.
I can certainly understand the motives behind it (protection of young network), but the critic that you quote has a point too.
Bump.
warren, a LiteCoin dev, said of Peercoin:
Why are broadcast checkpoints so indefensible? It would seem to make sense to have a protocol-level mechanism whereby the nodes agree not to go back past a certain number of blocks (say 10 or 20 blocks). What about the mechanism is flawed? It sounds like it's able to keep a network stable without requiring as much hashing power.
Quote
Good Luck Removing PPC's Centralized Checkpoints
Regarding PPC... these amount to empty obfuscating defensive excuses. Sure he wants to remove the broadcast checkpoints. Novacoin's Balthasar made similar promises because he too knows that it is indefensible. Unfortunately for PPC, in the age of ASIC's it will be impossible to keep a sha256d network stable without it, so I would be highly surprised if it is actually removed.
Regarding PPC... these amount to empty obfuscating defensive excuses. Sure he wants to remove the broadcast checkpoints. Novacoin's Balthasar made similar promises because he too knows that it is indefensible. Unfortunately for PPC, in the age of ASIC's it will be impossible to keep a sha256d network stable without it, so I would be highly surprised if it is actually removed.
Why are broadcast checkpoints so indefensible? It would seem to make sense to have a protocol-level mechanism whereby the nodes agree not to go back past a certain number of blocks (say 10 or 20 blocks). What about the mechanism is flawed? It sounds like it's able to keep a network stable without requiring as much hashing power.
Jump to: