• FaceDeer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    9 months ago

    there is nothing inherent to the protocol that dictates such massive power use.

    Yes there is, massive power use is the entire point of proof-of-work. If Bitcoin blocks could be produced without massive power use then the blockchain’s system of validation would fail and 51% attacks would be trivial.

    • HACKthePRISONS@kolektiva.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      the hash rate for the first blocks was achievable with a pentium 3. the protocol functioned then. there is nothing inherent to the protocol that dictates more hashpower is used. a 51% attack is the protocol functioning properly.

      • FaceDeer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        9 months ago

        That’s because there were just a handful of people mining the first blocks and there was no demand, so the price was basically zero.

        The protocol is meant to promote decentralization, so I have no idea how a 51% attack would be an example of the protocol functioning properly. A 51% attack is a demonstration that the protocol is controlled by a single entity.

              • FaceDeer@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                9 months ago

                Right. Which is not what I was talking about. This was about how a PoW chain would become useless if there was no cost involved in making blocks, ie, if the “W” part was missing. It would allow anyone to add blocks. There’d be no way to distinguish forks from each other and decide on a canonical one. Being able to agree on a particular fork as being the “valid” one in a decentralized manner is the fundamental secret sauce of what makes cryptocurrency work. All the various protocols boil down to ways of solving that one particular problem.

                  • FaceDeer@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Yes. But failing at the intent of the protocol in the process. When a hacker exploits a buffer overrun to take control of a remote computer, the computer is following its prescribed mechanisms to the letter. But that’s certainly not what the computer’s owner wants it to be doing.

                    If adding blocks to a PoW chain had no cost then the chain wouldn’t be functioning as its users desire - there’d be no canonical fork any more. It would fail to solve the Byzantine generals problem, which is fundamentally the purpose of cryptocurrency.