you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

and the "solutions" are all objectively worse security wise. And by thinking blockchains need proof of anything, you too misunderstand what a blockchain even is. Proof of whatever is needed by the concensus algorithm, not the blockchain.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    no; they all have trade-offs and that’s different… you can have trust less proof amongst semi-trusted parties like a consortium of banks: they don’t entirely trust each other, but trust each other enough to keep an eye on the other members of the consortium

    there are plenty of situations like this that are non-public

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    they are objectively, mathematically weaker.

    Joining ethereum now implies trusting a complete stranger to get you up to speed. It is objectively subjective.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    i wasn’t talking about ethereum, and i don’t think anyone was saying they don’t have TRADE OFFS. in the world of consensus protocols, there are many different trade offs that build a network that suits your needs

    however the consensus protocol has little to do with how mathematically secure a network is: the security of the consensus protocol comes down to a lot of complex things

    it also has nothing to do with how you bootstrap a node

    these things are all different, albeit interconnected things

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago*

    the consensus algorithm is the only thing that contributes to the network's security. That, and because it's trying to solve an impossible problem, it also needs the psychological element exploiting humans' greed (and therefore want to hoard currency).

  • source
  • parent