News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive. Parent comment

Re:Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive by kerkeslager on Monday July 05, 2021 @05:49PM (#27742146)
Glad we've come to the conclusion that things I didn't say aren't true!

What I actually said is, "[I]f you're only connected to two nodes and those two nodes are showing you two different spends of the same balance, you have no way to resolve that conflict. In PoW (a real proof algorithm) you simply look at the longer chain."

You're correct that this isn't a proof of consensus.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive by skybrian on Monday July 05, 2021 @08:26PM (#27743121)
Fair enough. But looking at the longest chain you have (from the two nodes you can connect to) and assuming it's valid is not sufficient. You also need some reason to believe there isn't a longer chain out there. (In practice this is by waiting for a certain number of "confirmations.")

Maybe that's assumed in "simply look at the longer chain" but I thought I'd point it out.

[ Parent | on HN ]