Why do proof of work systems ramp up the difficulty of hash solving while keeping latency constant, instead of keeping difficulty constant while nodes compete to reduce latency? The later seems more useful, and not inflationary.
-
-
Replying to @TimSweeneyEpic
The reason is because the only point of proof of work _is_ to keep latency high. You don't actually need it for anything else. The entire point of PoW is just to have there be a single value you can check before validating a transaction block. It's DDoS protection.
7 replies 2 retweets 48 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @TimSweeneyEpic
This is (but one) of the reasons "blockchain" is not a particularly good idea. People want low-latency, high-volume transactions, but the designs of these systems preclude that possibility entirely. They are, by design, not able to do the thing you wanted them to do.
5 replies 0 retweets 34 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @TimSweeneyEpic
This was only the first implementation of a timing component that was developed for blockchains, not the state of the art, though. For example, Solana uses verifiable delay functions instead for much smaller (but still verifiable) block timings
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Delay functions themselves don't solve the problem, they detect the problem. It's old fashioned PAXOS that solves this problem, or put more bluntly, "implementing transactions the same way banks already do: with fault-tolerant synchronization." From the Solana paper:pic.twitter.com/QLWF96fSbX
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.