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
Throughput isn't a problem if block size scales (on BTC, notably, it does not). Latency remains, but various chains have addressed it with e.g. opt-in 0-confirmation transactions, where the payee accepts the double-spend risk.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @moistgibs @TimSweeneyEpic
It's unclear what "block size scales" means here, though. Block sizes can't be scaled arbitrarily because they are universally replicated state. The VISA volume would crush most nodes on the BitCoin network, etc., just for storage.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
The only answer I have seen proposed is to simply not handle it, and to use side chains or other things that just abdicate responsibility. Do you know of a "blockchain" that "solves" this problem?
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
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.