• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    810 months ago

    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.

    • Pup Biru
      link
      fedilink
      -110 months ago

      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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        210 months ago

        they are objectively, mathematically weaker.

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

        • Pup Biru
          link
          fedilink
          010 months ago

          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

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            2
            edit-2
            10 months 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).