|
|
|
|
|
by tatertots1234
1479 days ago
|
|
> Very simple, throw the wallet holder in jail. This has no effect on the on-chain transaction, message, or application, which remains widely distributed across all nodes in the network. Tor is great but has different design goals, such as consensus of the entire network secured by about 10 nodes. > There are BFT consensus mechanisms that don't require the use of speculative tokens. What BFT mechanism do you propose to secure consensus of this "easy to build" tamper-proof ledger for a widely distributed network of untrusted nodes? Common choices are PoW or PoS, or PoA with a small number of trusted authorities as it is used in Tor. |
|
Sure, but you can't make those when you're locked in jail with no access to the internet. I believe this was made obvious all the way back in 2013 with the Silk Road bust.
>What BFT mechanism do you propose to secure consensus of this "easy to build" tamper-proof ledger for a widely distributed network of untrusted nodes?
Out of what you said, PoA is the only one that has any chance at being fair over a long period of time because it's a lot easier to eject bad actors from the network. If you use PoA there's not much point to using a blockchain, but this is good actually; it gives you the freedom to choose between any number of more efficient datastructures. PoS is mostly just a loose approximation of another form of PoA (whomever stakes the most is the authority) and it's wholly unnecessary if you get rid of the speculative tokens; PoW (and some PoS algorithms too) are quite literally based around consensus-by-lottery, in my view that's another reason why it will never be useful for anything beyond gambling on speculative tokens. I've seen a lot of variations on the algorithms but none of them can get away from that basic problem without morphing back into another form of PoA.