Reply to post: Re: The Problem With the B-b-b-l-l-l-o-o-o-c-c-c-k-k-k-c-c-c-h-h-h-a-a-a-i-i-i-n-n-n...

Linux Foundation assembles gang to build a better Blockchain


Re: The Problem With the B-b-b-l-l-l-o-o-o-c-c-c-k-k-k-c-c-c-h-h-h-a-a-a-i-i-i-n-n-n...

While the original Bitcoin may have problems forking itself to make any protocol improvements, theoretically new clients don't need to validate the entirety of all large historical old blocks in order to validate the entire chain. I can't see any reason why an improved protocol can't validate large old blocks through signed hashes - much smaller than the blocks themselves. All the new client has to do on installation is decide to trust principals within the network well known to the software developer which have already signed much smaller hashes of large old blocks and placed these signatures on record. Anyone who wants to download a copy of a large old block can then verify that the block matches the signed hash, and can download the public keys to verify the signatures on these blocks.

That said, I can see much worse resourcing problems than the occupation of hard disks and large network downloads, with the use of any technology which allocates resources to beneficiaries on the basis of who can consume the most electricity - even if this will inevitably result in more efficient hashing design conducted at large scale.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon