|
|
|
|
|
|
by julian_1
3181 days ago
|
|
|
Blockchains and POW are mostly orthogonal concerns. They've become associated because one implementation chose to use it, and is very well known. Also because POW is an effective way to grow network-effects by distributing profits to those that participate in 'mining'. |
|
|
My definition of "blockchain" is a distributed ledger in a entirely trustless p2p network. To which PoW is the most widely deployed mechanism in use to secure against the double spend problem. Pow being a mechanism that remains un-superseded inspite of significant efforts to do so. All this making PoW hardly orthogonal.
Of course this definition of a "blockchain" can be loosened. One of two tweaks and suddenly we need to label prosaic everyday items such as a git repos as "blockchains".
At which point it becomes difficult to even have conversation about "blockchains" since our industry has yet to bring to bear a sufficient amount of focus to even define the term with any sort of useful precision.