Blockchain issues

File: FAVyM.gif (30KB, 300x316px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 300x316px

>>1568561

>>1568561
First of all, do those who run/own the servers have the potential to disrupt the network?
every time someone makes an exchange, it goes to a block, a block is a group of every transaction made. miners will atempt to solve a logical problem, and while doing so they complete the transactions, and if they are lucky they get new coins as profit. when the block is mined they brodcast the solution to every server on the blockchain and its added to a huge file that is the same everywhere. so one server/mining pool/single miner cant disrupt this process. the only way to do so is if every single file in the world had been changed exacly the same way at the same time, and even so i belive the math behind it would nulify the transaction. About power, there are new technologies like the ones used in brust coin that uses HDD instead of GPUS. i dont know the math on what will happen when all the bitcoins are mined, this is an unfinished experiment, i think that depending of the price of the bitcoin when the mining has ended the price of the transaction fees can worth more than the cost spent on eleticity. Case thats not true, i dont know what will happen with the bitcoin, that could end or delay the system of transfer validation alot.

just buy 1credit on poloniex. you will make bare p's

>>1568619
>>1568619
I didn't expect a quality reply ha, thanks. I haven't really looked into other types of proofs yet. On first glance it seems the proof of capacity solves all the problems I mentioned. Is it possible that certain cryptos can change the algorithm they use, or are they permanently stuck with what they were designed with? Meaning will new efficient methods make old currencies obsolete or will the currencies adapt?

>>1568619
>>1568561
>>1568725

I know this board is not home to the smartest people, but I feel like it really is getting worse.

>>1568621
>I've been holding DGB when I could've been making mad gains on 1CRedit
fuck

>>1568561
> implementation problems
This should be fun.

> do those who run/own the servers have the potential to disrupt the network?
They are called miners, and yes, they could, if they controlled more of the hashing power than the network itself (ie 51%+ of the network hashrate). This is in the Wikipedia article.

> What about these mining pools who are quickly consolidating power? If huge companies own the servers and transaction power, this gives them leverage over this "decentralized" system.
They don't and cannot feasibly control more than 51% of the network and cannot hijack the blockchain as a result. It is possible in theory, but in reality it would cost more money than the entire market cap of bitcoin. Past that concentration is not really relevant. This is in the Wikipedia article.

> unsustainable power use
Lol. Try "we could really waste a lot less electricity on proof-of-work for a hippy crypto". Unsustainable does not really describe the situation well. This is in the Wikipedia article.

>>1568619
> every time someone initiates a transaction, miners add it to their current block, a block being a list of transactions a miner is attempting to confirm with the network through proof of work
ftfy

> Is it possible that certain cryptos can change the algorithm they use, or are they permanently stuck with what they were designed with? Meaning will new efficient methods make old currencies obsolete or will the currencies adapt?
Bitcoin does not use very many algorithms. It just hashes. That's all it does. It signs messages, which are transactions. Bitcoin is a protocol. The hashing algorithms used in BTC protocol are pretty efficient but it would be good for various areas of computing if they were even more efficient. As far as crypto structure, the mining process, proof-of-work vs proof-of-stake etc, this is all just protocol which can be changed whenever and you would essentially create a new crypto.

>>1568561

fuck off