Topic: "Why blockchain needs cryptocurrency?" - page 2. (Read 612 times)
The miners need to be incentivised to conduct the PoW, and without the monetary/currency incentive, the network is not run.
No cryptocurrency, no block subsidy.
No block subsidy, no miners.
No miners, no security.
Public blockchains exist in an adversarial environment and as such must be protected from would-be attackers trying to tamper with transaction history or double-spending assets. This protection is bought and paid for by the cryptocurrency issued by the respective blockchain.
No block subsidy, no miners.
No miners, no security.
Public blockchains exist in an adversarial environment and as such must be protected from would-be attackers trying to tamper with transaction history or double-spending assets. This protection is bought and paid for by the cryptocurrency issued by the respective blockchain.
Through the block rewards and the fees subsidized by the users. I believe that should be said to make the newbies and old users deeply understand that decentralization, security, sovereign ownership, and censorship resistance each comes with a cost, especially in times when fees become high.
No cryptocurrency, no block subsidy.
No block subsidy, no miners.
No miners, no security.
...
Even non-proof-of-work blockchains need internal currency: proof-of-stake need it to ensure that block producersNo block subsidy, no miners.
No miners, no security.
...
risk their stake in case things go wrong (like BTC or USD price of their assets dropping on news that they managed to break the system)
and proof-of-authority need it to reward witnesses/oracles from transaction fees.
Proof-of-burn, also called proof-of-sacrifice, however, can use currency on another blockchain: I can give right to produce block
to public key who burned some coins or tokens on e.g. LTC or ETH. But even they need currency to sacrifice, external to their blockchain.
What do I answer if someone asks me this question? I have done some research but I am still confused so kindly help me out. And this is my first thread on forum kindly excuse me if I made any mistake.
Thank you!
Thank you!
Blockchain is a technology with many applications whereas cryptocurrency is only a part of the blockchain applications. There are other applications without need for cryptocurrency.
That was basically the OP's question. In my opinion, there are no really sensible applications of a blockchain without a cryptocurrency, because that would then mostly be a private blockchain and, essentially, just a very inefficient database.
Perhaps need more understanding of the core fundamentals of Blockchain technology, its foundation and wider applications before asserting the ' impossibility of its existence without a cryptocurrency'. Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency that made Blockchain famous but this does not mean that Blockchain is all about cryptocurrencies and cannot exist without one. Blockchain has been in use for unconventional hightechs without crytpocurrencies involved.
What do I answer if someone asks me this question? I have done some research but I am still confused so kindly help me out. And this is my first thread on forum kindly excuse me if I made any mistake.
Thank you!
Thank you!
Blockchain is a technology with many applications whereas cryptocurrency is only a part of the blockchain applications. There are other applications without need for cryptocurrency.
That was basically the OP's question. In my opinion, there are no really sensible applications of a blockchain without a cryptocurrency, because that would then mostly be a private blockchain and, essentially, just a very inefficient database.
What do I answer if someone asks me this question? I have done some research but I am still confused so kindly help me out. And this is my first thread on forum kindly excuse me if I made any mistake.
Thank you!
Thank you!
Blockchain is a technology with many applications whereas cryptocurrency is only a part of the blockchain applications. There are other applications without need for cryptocurrency.
What do I answer if someone asks me this question? I have done some research but I am still confused so kindly help me out. And this is my first thread on forum kindly excuse me if I made any mistake.
Thank you!
Thank you!
Blockchain is a system that records transactions that have occurred then stored by all computers spread on the network itself, for example if you pay for coffee with Bitcoin, then you transfer to the address of Bitcoin cafe that sells the coffee in peer to peer and this transaction will recorded on all computers scattered on the Bitcoin network, so it will be harder to hack hundreds or even thousands of computers in the transaction, in terms of security Cryptocurrency really needs this Blockchain system.
Blockchain and cryptocurrency are two different things but they are inseparable. Cyrptocurrency is digital currency which can be used in financial transactions and those transactions are automatically recorded in digital ledger called blockchain. This is same with the existing accounting principle. Every transaction should be recorded properly for monitoring and transparency of records. The good thing in blockchain is, it is made publicly and cannot be corrupt by hackers. In this manner, you can see that in every cryptocurrency there is always the blockchain.
True, but OP's question was actually the other way round: Not "cryptocurrency needs blockchain" but why a "blockchain needs cryptocurrency" (which is not the same thing logically!).
That was already answered well before: At least in a decentralised and permission-less blockchain, you need the cryptocurrency to incentivise miners and get the game theory right (i.e. so that there are economic incentives to stay in consensus with others).
Blockchain and cryptocurrency are two different things but they are inseparable. Cyrptocurrency is digital currency which can be used in financial transactions and those transactions are automatically recorded in digital ledger called blockchain. This is same with the existing accounting principle. Every transaction should be recorded properly for monitoring and transparency of records. The good thing in blockchain is, it is made publicly and cannot be corrupt by hackers. In this manner, you can see that in every cryptocurrency there is always the blockchain.
[...]
Of course such protection isn't needed for private blockchains that run in a trusted environment. A private blockchain can do without miners and thus without cryptocurrency. However the benefits of running a private blockchain in a controlled, non-adversarial environment remain questionable.
Of course such protection isn't needed for private blockchains that run in a trusted environment. A private blockchain can do without miners and thus without cryptocurrency. However the benefits of running a private blockchain in a controlled, non-adversarial environment remain questionable.
What do you mean by controlled and non-adversarial? Of course, a private blockchain is supposed to be controlled. There are some uses where a blockchain needs to be controlled, especially if it's a private one. And I really don't get what you mean by non-adversarial
I'm using the term "non-adversarial" synonymous with "trusted" in this case. Meaning an environment where you don't expect any of the participants to defect, eg. by sending a fraudulent transaction or attempting to tamper with the transaction history.
What I mean to say is this: While private blockchains can do without a native cryptocurrency, I don't see the benefits of a private blockchain over a classical database. If a central entity already has control over which data is added one might as well simply use more performant and scalable technologies that are just as secure in the given context. I'd love to hear contrarian opinions though, albeit this may stray a bit too far from the original topic.
No cryptocurrency, no block subsidy.
No block subsidy, no miners.
No miners, no security.
Public blockchains exist in an adversarial environment and as such must be protected from would-be attackers trying to tamper with transaction history or double-spending assets. This protection is bought and paid for by the cryptocurrency issued by the respective blockchain.
Of course such protection isn't needed for private blockchains that run in a trusted environment. A private blockchain can do without miners and thus without cryptocurrency. However the benefits of running a private blockchain in a controlled, non-adversarial environment remain questionable.
No block subsidy, no miners.
No miners, no security.
Public blockchains exist in an adversarial environment and as such must be protected from would-be attackers trying to tamper with transaction history or double-spending assets. This protection is bought and paid for by the cryptocurrency issued by the respective blockchain.
Of course such protection isn't needed for private blockchains that run in a trusted environment. A private blockchain can do without miners and thus without cryptocurrency. However the benefits of running a private blockchain in a controlled, non-adversarial environment remain questionable.
What do you mean by controlled and non-adversarial? Of course, a private blockchain is supposed to be controlled. There are some uses where a blockchain needs to be controlled, especially if it's a private one. And I really don't get what you mean by non-adversarial
No cryptocurrency, no block subsidy.
No block subsidy, no miners.
No miners, no security.
Public blockchains exist in an adversarial environment and as such must be protected from would-be attackers trying to tamper with transaction history or double-spending assets. This protection is bought and paid for by the cryptocurrency issued by the respective blockchain.
Of course such protection isn't needed for private blockchains that run in a trusted environment. A private blockchain can do without miners and thus without cryptocurrency. However the benefits of running a private blockchain in a controlled, non-adversarial environment remain questionable.
No block subsidy, no miners.
No miners, no security.
Public blockchains exist in an adversarial environment and as such must be protected from would-be attackers trying to tamper with transaction history or double-spending assets. This protection is bought and paid for by the cryptocurrency issued by the respective blockchain.
Of course such protection isn't needed for private blockchains that run in a trusted environment. A private blockchain can do without miners and thus without cryptocurrency. However the benefits of running a private blockchain in a controlled, non-adversarial environment remain questionable.
A generic block chain doesn't need to use a cryptocurrency because it is just a distributed database. Also, a cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin is implemented using a block chain, so the question kind of doesn't make sense.
Regardless, I think this is the answer you are looking for: A decentralized database that records exchanges of value, such as a public cryptocurrency block chain, requires the representation of the value to exist entirely in the block chain in order to ensure its integrity. If the representation were to exist outside of the block chain, then it would not be possible to guarantee that the block chain matches reality.
Regardless, I think this is the answer you are looking for: A decentralized database that records exchanges of value, such as a public cryptocurrency block chain, requires the representation of the value to exist entirely in the block chain in order to ensure its integrity. If the representation were to exist outside of the block chain, then it would not be possible to guarantee that the block chain matches reality.
What do I answer if someone asks me this question? I have done some research but I am still confused so kindly help me out. And this is my first thread on forum kindly excuse me if I made any mistake.
Thank you!
Thank you!
Jump to: