Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

>If NIST is unimpeachable, why not just have them run the anti-double-spending database and dispense with this inefficient blockchain stuff? :)

Because even if NIST helps someone cheat, the cheaters only get a minor advantage and NIST runs a huge risk. Having an additional security measure which doesn't endanger the entire system if it is broken is not that same as trusting NIST.

Furthermore you can also compose the NIST beacon with other random beacons so that they would all have to collude for any party to cheat.

Imagine tomorrow, we find out a small (<33%) pool is selfish mining, what is a fix we can roll out in a few hours that will stop them while we examine longer term solutions (a long term solution might be asking every pool above 33% to provide a beacon and then having miners compose these beacons).

>This general class of solutions often runs into problems with creating incentives for large miners to continue to mine at your current height and ignore a third party block, because you know you'll beat it in a race even though you announced late.

Yes, we run into these problems at 33% of mining power. That being said, a 33% attack is better than the 0.5% attack.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: