Why can't crypto currencies have every node verify blocks independently instead of proof of work/stake?

Alex Breeze

1/6/24, 3:03 PM

For verifying transactions, normally nodes do proof of work and agree with the majority of workers, but why can't they just do the computation themselves and agree with any other node that has the same result? That way even if an attacker has 99% of the work/stake/etc, the other 1% (aka all the actual users) can ignore the attacker because they all know he's wrong, essentially an automatic pruning of incorrect transaction history branches.

1 + 0

proof-of-work

Score:1

Crypto

user253751

1/6/24, 8:54 PM

The purpose of proof-of-work or proof-of-stake is not to exclude block chains with invalid transactions; it is to make sure there is only one chain with valid transactions.

Without proof-of-work, any old fool (like me) can compute a whole bunch of blocks: one with a transaction where I sent \$100 to Alice, one with a transaction where I sent \$100 to Bob, one where I still have the \$100.

So which one is the block that actually counts? Who has the \$100? That's what proof-of-work and proof-of-stake systems attempt to solve.

+ 0

Elon Musk

I sit in a Tesla and translated this thread with Ai:

EN: Why can't crypto currencies have every node verify blocks independently instead of proof of work/stake?

Post an answer

Most people don’t grasp that asking a lot of questions unlocks learning and improves interpersonal bonding. In Alison’s studies, for example, though people could accurately recall how many questions had been asked in their conversations, they didn’t intuit the link between questions and liking. Across four studies, in which participants were engaged in conversations themselves or read transcripts of others’ conversations, people tended not to realize that question asking would influence—or had influenced—the level of amity between the conversationalists.