1
$\begingroup$

If I am a Bitcoin node, I can evaluate two blockchains in terms of each one consisting of more Terahashes than the other and thus deduct which one is the "correct" one. There is impartial source of consensus - hashes done.

But what if I had two blockchains, each one making a different function, e.g. one is Bitcoin and making SHA-256 and another is making other random computation. Could I impartially deduct which "chain" has the most computation work/effort spent even if in those two chains the "way" this computation work is spent is different? Is there common impartial denominator then?

Or, to make it even more interesting, if a blockchain had self-amending possibility like Tezos, and in a certain point of time it reached a consensus to change it's Proof-of-Work method to e.g. more memory-hard (in order to discontinue usic ASICs) then could a node that wasn't connected to the network before that change somehow use a common denominator of computing effort (now not necessarily Hashes used) to evaluate the right chain by checking how much computing effort was spent on chain both before the amendment (when e.g. SHA-256 was used) and after change (when some new Proof-of-Work is used)?

$\endgroup$
0

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

Short answer - no. Any denominator used to compare computing work spent on two different functions would be subjective to those functions. Therefore it cannot be source of consensus spreading over many functions. It'd like comparing apples to oranges.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.