Re:Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive
by ywei3410 on Monday July 05, 2021 @12:59PM
(#27739840)
For context, this is usually known as a 'Sybil attack'.
Re:Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive
by micropresident on Tuesday July 06, 2021 @01:19PM
(#27751524)
This is a common mistake w/r/t Proof of Work. It doesn't prevent Sybil attacks. The Bitcoin whitepaper performs slight of hand to say "instead of identities, we'll use CPUs" which are obviously what Sybil attacks are in the first place. One person can own lots of CPUs... (Thus mining operations.)
What it does do is make Sybilers larger and larger shareholders in the network to make it so that the more you Sybil the network the less you'd want to try to damage it.
Re:Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive
by ajkdhcb2 on Tuesday July 06, 2021 @04:32PM
(#27753866)
If you have a central entity that can generate key pairs then they may as well be running a database. It doesnt achieve decentralisation at all. It has nothing to do with anonymity: anything based on identity is broken because it has an entity that can fake those identities -- you can't verify ID with code
The true reason something like proof of work is required is because the system is also anonymous and distributed where being anonymous is the more critical aspect. Because of that you can not know who is out there and can cast a vote. Are this votes from a million legitimate users or did one user just send a million votes? The solution to prevent users from casting arbitrary many votes is then to make it hard for them to cast a vote, you make them for example waste a lot of clock cycles for each vote.
But, as I said, not because this is inherently a requirement but because you want to establish consensus among members of an anonymous group of unknown size and them wasting a certain number of clock cycles is a rough proxy for everyone gets one vote assuming that everyone has very roughly access to the same amount of computing power.