0
$\begingroup$

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 power spent even if in those two chains the "way" this computation power 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 power (now not necessarily Hashes used) to evaluate the right chain by checking how much computing power 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)?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ "Computing work" or "amount of computing" is the appropriate term here. "Computing power" usually means something more like how much computation is done in a unit of time. $\endgroup$ – Apass.Jack Dec 30 '18 at 7:20
0
$\begingroup$

Short answer - no. Any denominator used to compare computing power 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, privacy policy and cookie policy

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