this post was submitted on 01 May 2025
176 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

38593 readers
477 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lime@feddit.nu 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

you're calculating the sha256 (i think) hash of the previous transaction block's hash plus your block of transactions. What's making it proof-of-work though, is the stipulation that "the hash has to start with at least five zeroes", with "five" being an adjustable difficulty value. To be able to get that specific hash an otherwise meaningless number (a "nonce") is included, and by increasing this number by one you can change the hash value.

so basically, all these servers are running hash calculations on the same thing over and over again with a single number changing between runs until they get an "approved" hash value. whoever gets there the fastest gets their block added to the chain, then everyone else has to start over with that hash as the "previous" one.

It's called "proof of work" because it's difficult to find a suitable value, but it's trivial to check that it's correct. you just need the nonce. so by presenting that nonce to everyone, you've proved that you "did the work".

as for the reason why they do this, if each block's hash is dependent on the hash of the block before it, it means the entire chain is resistant to tampering. you can't insert a block in the middle without recalculating the entire chain.

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, so you end up with a fraction of a fraction of the work time going to actually doing the block chain transaction, and the vast majority going into the artificial difficulty

[–] lime@feddit.nu 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

yup, running a global network on top of something designed to be slow seems... inadvisable.