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
Latency should factor out of the equation, right? I see that Proof of Work makes certain kinds of Denial of Service attacks expensive. But is the dimensionless constant 10 minutes (BTC update rate) divided by 0.3s (global worst case ping time) = 6000 significant?
3 replies 0 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @TimSweeneyEpic @cmuratori
Clearly as that number approaches 1, the region of the world that produces the most transactions gains an advantage in building the longest chain soonest.
4 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @TimSweeneyEpic
I'm not sure I understand the question, but, the idea was that anybody could run a bitcoin node. In order to run the node, they need enough computing resources to validate all block candidates being broadcast. Validating a block is potentially very expensive...
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @TimSweeneyEpic
It often seems that early concepts get locked in to minds of many creators, and having new kinds of ways to solve the problems is very often discouraged (by fans of the previously popular solutions).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, that is definitely a thing.
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.