ResearchMed wrote: ↑
Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:31 pm
This is no doubt totally (and embarrassingly) naive, but... if the "benefit" is that "will be distributed on many different computers and that makes it super difficult to hack"...and there are/can be "transactions against the data by participants and these need to be timestamped and ledgerized"...
Why couldn't someone just hack the blockchain and get the changes (good for them, not so good for you and me...) to appear everywhere, just like "honest" changes?
What would stop "dishonest transactions" from being "timestamped and ledgerized"?
How is this different from the basic cops and robbers game. New "cop strategy"... soon... new "robber strategy" to defeat it?
Yes, yes, I need to do more homework, but I'm not sure why "THIS technology" - or *any* technology - is supposedly so "foolproof".
[Unfortunately, my "cutting edge" tech days and skills have gone the way of some dinosaurs.]
Let me see if I can explain without all of the techno crap:
(1) There is no such thing as an honest or dishonest transaction. There is a transaction that happened at a certain time which was done by someone or not. The essence of block chaining is that whether the transaction happened or not cannot be lied about. This is because the transactions are chained together and then a sequential hash is computed (block-chaining
). Getting two different transactions with the same hash is computationally very very hard (except for quantum computers). So, you can think of this as an integrity check over a series of transactions. But you require that hashes are computed correctly (more on that below).
(2) So the point here is that if a transaction happened, you can't lie about whether it happened or not. That is multiple parties have arrived at a consensus on the state of the world.
(3) Now consider the case when some of the parties are buggy or malicious. In this case, we need further crypto-crap to make things work (this is the so-called byzantine consensus). To understand more about Byzantine Consensus see Byzantine Fault Tolerance
. A single party cannot break the consensus since there is a majority of non-bad/non-buggy parties also executing the protocol.
That is as well as I can explain it without the math. There is no rocket science here, just well understood mathematics.