It seems people confuse the “public security” aspect of Bitcoin (ledger integrity protected by PoW) with the “private security” aspect of Bitcoin (safe ownership of coins protected by ECDSA). Signatures are only relevant to private security.https://twitter.com/aridavidpaul/status/985536073668456448 …
-
-
PoW without signatures/transactions *absolutely* has value. PoW, judged on its own merits, is a new consensus mechanism and a breakthrough over traditional BFT systems (which PoS protocols are a subset of).
-
The opposite of your statement is true: “Signatures/transactions without PoW have no value”.
-
So the whole subject of cryptographic signatures, which has been used for decades in many other use cases, has no value?
-
That's not what I meant. Of cos cryptography has value. But in the context of distributed consensus, talking about signatures before consensus is putting the cart before the horse. You need consensus first to establish meaning.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.
