![]() Everyone who really has done the work, though, not only knows about the successful guess, but also about quintillions or sextillions of unsuccessful guesses which can be compactly represented by specifying the method by which they were generated in the usual case, it will be possible to say not only that your nonce gives a good hash, but that a large number of others don’t–most likely, that yours is the first example in a very long arithmetic progression which succeeds after 10^20 or however many failures. But what if there were a hole in the crypto, a shortcut to finding likelier nonces? It would obviously be in the interests of the Bitcoin community to know whether someone had developed such a thing.Īs things stand now, this isn’t detectable, but only because of the presumption that a successful hash represents work. We accept “proof of work” based on the assumption that there is no faster way to find a nonce which will give a new block a good enough hash value than brute-force search (currently requiring sextillions of guesses on average). ![]() (I posted this on the Bitcoin Forum, cross-posting it here for archival purposes)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |