mempool

A place to chat about the Bitcoin Stackexchange, Bitcoin in ge...
Nov 15, 2017 18:04
@NickODell I meant theoretically, would it be possible for malicious nodes to create a longer chain and force other nodes to accept that?
Nov 15, 2017 16:47
@NickODell That makes a lot of sense.. so would it be correct to say that POW is a deterrent to this scenario because of the involved computation cost rather than a safeguard?
Nov 14, 2017 20:32
Not sure if my question makes sense! Another way to put it would be, let's say there's a hypothetical algorithm to achieve distributed consensus (which is byzantine fault tolerant) without selecting a random node, would the concept of proof-of-work/stake/anything else be necessary in that scenario?
Nov 14, 2017 20:28
But is this necessary for preventing an attack? Because if a block has already been accepted by the other nodes, how would a malicious node be able to affect a change in the chain of other nodes, assuming a majority of the nodes are honest
Nov 14, 2017 20:25
Specifically the white paper states "Once the CPU
effort has been expended to make it satisfy the proof-of-work, the block cannot be changed
without redoing the work. As later blocks are chained after it, the work to change the block
would include redoing all the blocks after it."
Nov 14, 2017 20:24
Hi Guys, I have been reading about bitcoin (coursera, white paper) and the underlying mechanics, and I have some questions about proof-of-work which is used in Bitcoin protocol. From what I understand, proof-of-work is used as a means to select a random node which gets to broadcast its block to everyone else
 

  Easter Chaos

XKCD's and rm -rf / are here. Although this chatroom feels a b...
Jul 21, 2016 20:45
rm -rf
Jul 21, 2016 20:44
exit
Jul 21, 2016 20:44
rm -rf
Jul 21, 2016 20:44
ls -al
Jul 21, 2016 20:44
ls
Jul 21, 2016 20:44
rm -rf