News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Blockchain: A Better Way to Track Pork Chops, Bonds, Bad Peanut Butter?. Parent comment

Re:Blockchain: A Better Way to Track Pork Chops, Bonds, Bad ... by bluejekyll on Sunday March 19, 2017 @11:20AM (#13907592)
Yeah. Isn't this a major problem with all of these alternative implementations? The 50% problem will always be an issues in small deployments.

It's still a problem in the largest deployment. Does anyone have a "solution" to this?

In this specific case, it seems like what they really should do is have a set of trusted nodes for ledger replication.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Blockchain: A Better Way to Track Pork Chops, Bonds, Bad ... by bizzleDawg on Sunday March 19, 2017 @11:46AM (#13907773)
Surely the best antidote to the 51% attack is to have a large population of nodes so that an attack would have to be prohibitively large?

W.r.t. having a set of trusted nodes, that's fine, however does the blockchain add anything in this situation?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Blockchain: A Better Way to Track Pork Chops, Bonds, Bad ... by bluejekyll on Sunday March 19, 2017 @12:25PM (#13908005)
No. That's actually my point. This industry probably doesn't want to invest in always having 51% of the nodes, so trusted central ledgers makes more sense to me.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Blockchain: A Better Way to Track Pork Chops, Bonds, Bad ... by sanswork on Sunday March 19, 2017 @02:06PM (#13908671)
The solution is to not use PoW.
[ Parent | on HN ]