General > General Technical Chat
BEWARE of fake EEVblog NFT's
<< < (17/22) > >>
daqq:

--- Quote from: NiHaoMike on January 16, 2022, 12:56:53 am ---
--- Quote from: MadTux on January 15, 2022, 11:07:19 pm ---Hopefully all that crypto cancer goes bust, like dotcom back then.
My compassion will be similar as with those banksters back in '07-09...

--- End quote ---
I'm hoping that energy efficient cryptocurrencies become the norm. That can be cryptocurrencies that use little energy to mine or cryptocurrencies where the "mining" does useful work (or both). Main problem is that thus far, none of them have been truly popular or have remained efficient in the long term.

--- End quote ---

(based on https://xkcd.com/927/ )
EEVblog:

--- Quote from: nctnico on January 20, 2022, 12:57:18 pm ---2) energy wasted due to inefficient distributed ledgers (block chain). That is a problem that needs to be solved because distributed ledger is a useful technology. Actually, a specification for bidirectional EV - grid charging (https://www.smart-energy.com/industry-sectors/new-technology/first-blockchain-based-ev-grid-integration-standard-released/) is using distributed ledger technology to make the system more robust and increase availability.

--- End quote ---

Why didn't they just use Power Ledger?  :-//
tom66:

--- Quote from: NiHaoMike on January 21, 2022, 05:13:27 am ---
--- Quote from: nctnico on January 20, 2022, 11:33:41 pm ---At some point a distributed ledger needs to have 'supernodes' that have all the data and sub-nodes that store less data and fetch that from the super nodes. Probably peer-to-peer networking technology helps. But again, this is just me thinking out loud.

--- End quote ---
That's basically what I proposed? Some nodes store everything, others only store the "hot" part of the blockchain that's in active use. Requiring the miners to have a complete copy would help ensure that the whole blockchain always remains available.

--- End quote ---

If some nodes hold everything, and the number of those nodes is small, it's theoretically possible to obtain access to all of those nodes and perform a hostile takeover of the network.  With access to the ledger you can corrupt transaction history, removing spending completely or permitting double spending, and the ledger is the only complete record, so unless all of the sub-nodes get together, they won't discover your con (and you might be long gone by that time.)

The 'genius' with bitcoin was giving nodes a reason to be a 'super-node', the mining reward.  Of course it's less genius now it consumes GWh of energy every year, but the original idea was pretty clever.

Solving that problem is non-trivial if you remove the reward mechanism.  I think Ethereum will be doing it by having 'consensus' through proof-of-stake and paying fees to those who maintain the block-chain;  not all that familiar with this though, so could be wrong.  It may be a certain size now where validating the transaction list itself is enough work to be computationally challenging.
NiHaoMike:

--- Quote from: tom66 on January 21, 2022, 08:58:27 am ---If some nodes hold everything, and the number of those nodes is small, it's theoretically possible to obtain access to all of those nodes and perform a hostile takeover of the network.  With access to the ledger you can corrupt transaction history, removing spending completely or permitting double spending, and the ledger is the only complete record, so unless all of the sub-nodes get together, they won't discover your con (and you might be long gone by that time.)
--- End quote ---
It would take an impractical amount of work to generate an alternative history up to the first "hot block" since it would basically amount to a complete hash collision on the block right before, in contrast to mining only being a partial hash collision. To make that even less plausible, there could be "super blocks" that all nodes store which then would mean having to create an alternative history that intersects all those points.

--- Quote ---Solving that problem is non-trivial if you remove the reward mechanism.  I think Ethereum will be doing it by having 'consensus' through proof-of-stake and paying fees to those who maintain the block-chain;  not all that familiar with this though, so could be wrong.  It may be a certain size now where validating the transaction list itself is enough work to be computationally challenging.

--- End quote ---
Curecoin and Foldingcoin use medical research as the "work" in "proof of work". Thus while that doesn't solve the energy use problem directly, it does mean that it does useful work outside of mining.
tszaboo:

--- Quote from: tom66 on January 21, 2022, 08:58:27 am ---
--- Quote from: NiHaoMike on January 21, 2022, 05:13:27 am ---
--- Quote from: nctnico on January 20, 2022, 11:33:41 pm ---At some point a distributed ledger needs to have 'supernodes' that have all the data and sub-nodes that store less data and fetch that from the super nodes. Probably peer-to-peer networking technology helps. But again, this is just me thinking out loud.

--- End quote ---
That's basically what I proposed? Some nodes store everything, others only store the "hot" part of the blockchain that's in active use. Requiring the miners to have a complete copy would help ensure that the whole blockchain always remains available.

--- End quote ---

If some nodes hold everything, and the number of those nodes is small, it's theoretically possible to obtain access to all of those nodes and perform a hostile takeover of the network.  With access to the ledger you can corrupt transaction history, removing spending completely or permitting double spending, and the ledger is the only complete record, so unless all of the sub-nodes get together, they won't discover your con (and you might be long gone by that time.)

The 'genius' with bitcoin was giving nodes a reason to be a 'super-node', the mining reward.  Of course it's less genius now it consumes GWh of energy every year, but the original idea was pretty clever.

Solving that problem is non-trivial if you remove the reward mechanism.  I think Ethereum will be doing it by having 'consensus' through proof-of-stake and paying fees to those who maintain the block-chain;  not all that familiar with this though, so could be wrong.  It may be a certain size now where validating the transaction list itself is enough work to be computationally challenging.

--- End quote ---
Ethereum PoS is years out by their own estimation. Too little, too late.
There are already chains have effective PoS implementation. And it works, today. There are networks that run at 0.001% of BTC's consumption, with tokens, NFT, compatible with the Ethereum virtual machine, and ecosystem, transfers take 2 seconds, and cost less than 1 cent. And you cannot "mine it" so it is not going to be an ecological disaster like ETH and BTC.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod