Author: Troy Benjegerdes 2014-03-23 23:17:37
Published on: 2014-03-23T23:17:37+00:00
The discussion revolves around the concept of proof-of-publication and how it is being implemented. Some members of the community believe that proof-of-publication applications are bad and should be discouraged as they do not provide any reason to use it over other data encoding methods. However, there is a lack of understanding about how Bitcoin works and what proof-of-publication actually is. Mark Friedenbach proposes an alternative way of implementing proof of publication by storing hashes or hash root and soft-forking that blocks are only accepted if the data tree is provided or sufficient work is built on it and/or sufficient time has passed. This way, full nodes can ignore the published data until it is sufficiently buried.There is a difference of opinion regarding the economics of attacking merge-mined chains. Some argue that merged mined separated chains are more secure than non-merged mined ones, whereas others believe that non-merged mined altchains using memory-hard proof-of-work are a far better option than sha-256 merged-mined altchains. The author believes that a truly 'distributed' system must support multiple altchains and multiple proof-of-work hash algorithms, and probably support proof-of-stake as well. They find it irresponsible for Bitcoiners to claim any discussion about alternate chains as 'off-topic' if Bitcoin-core is for *distributed systems*. Lastly, the author advises against picking a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel or trying to buy a hacker who makes money by the megahash.
Updated on: 2023-06-08T15:32:36.801957+00:00