Hi, A simple question about blockhain

[FelipeLeandro]

a crypto without being inside a blockchain is less secure than the ones that is there?

[1714777158]

1714777158

[1714777158]

1714777158

[1714777158]

1714777158

[franky1]

over simplifying it..

blockchains allow finality/settlement. that once agreed that everyone sees the same ledger of transactions and they all compare. its final and locked. no changing it. because there is no central location that can be edited

crypto without blockchains are just signed promises that can be revoked, edited, lost, deleted or forgotten.

which would you rather trust
a freshly signed cheque where you cant see the payers bank account to know if he can fund the payment,
or
a cleared cheque that is on your bank statement that the funds are now in your account

in short dont trust a cheque until its cleared

[bitmover]

a crypto without being inside a blockchain is less secure than the ones that is there?

There are technologies other than blockchain for cryptocurrencieas. Some of them are not secure. For example, IOTA uses tangle but it had huge security problems. You can read it here:
https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=5227016.0

There are others, like Hashgraph  as well. Like hedera , currently 34 on CMC. But, will it sustain? Is it really safe, or will it just fail like IOTA?

blockchain is the most secure and tested technology for cryptocurrencies.

[DapanasFruit]

While not closing our eyes to maybe new innovations aside from the blockchain technology in the continuing quest for the best cryptocurrency, I would say that so far with blockchain technology we can be assured of proven safety and that is why most cryptos are founded on this technology. I am however so willing to look into other technologies so we would not have a type of monopoly here but they must first proved to be good and not just doing it for the sake of having an alternative. As mentioned here by another poster, Hedera can be promising but we still have to wait if it can prove itself in time, though personally am excited for it because I am supporting a music project which is into Hedera.

[syedakhlaque]

a crypto without being inside a blockchain is less secure than the ones that is there?

The use of blockchain technology in the bitcoin business has won the trust of the people. It also made the peer-to-peer transaction secure. This technology made the crypto business very successful. Because a huge community of the people wants to do business or trade through internet use but there was very much theft, fraud, and cheating. Satoshi Nakamoto succeeded through cryptocurrency(Bitcoin) to provide people with a good business facility through blockchain technology. Blockchain technology proved very secure and faithful for everyone.

[franky1]

before 2009. many 'cypherpunks ' already invented 'smart contracts' .. smart contracts between private individuals is not new tech. its older tech, older than blockchains.

blockchains was an invention that made smart contracts immutable and set in stone to then be useful as an account of value registry. where that registry has no central point of failure. blockchains provides that registry

without blockchains it devolves to old tech which can be manipulated.
the flaws and security risks of 'crypto/smart contracts' without blockchains, has been very well known from the 1990's-2008

[DaveF]

That is an overly simplified question.
A well written non blockchain based coin is probably more secure then a poorly written one with low hashrate.

Look at the 51% attacks that have happened on other blockchains. Look at the ETH DAO hack and rollback and split to ETC and so on.

So if you are talking about BTC vs other major coins then one with a public blockchain is more secure.
If you are asking in general, it's a very broad question with no good answer.

-Dave

[franky1]

That is an overly simplified question.
A well written non blockchain based coin is probably more secure then a poorly written one with low hashrate.

Look at the 51% attacks that have happened on other blockchains. Look at the ETH DAO hack and rollback and split to ETC and so on.

So if you are talking about BTC vs other major coins then one with a public blockchain is more secure.
If you are asking in general, it's a very broad question with no good answer.

-Dave

hmm

ok i just wrote a transaction paying Dave some coin..
........... .............. ...........
... oh dave you didnt get it.? can you prove you didnt get it? because my records say you did.
oh wait. i didnt use a blockchain coin.. oh well seems you prefer to not use blockchains so,  guess we are settled.

see the issues with this scenario?

if someone could 51% a blockchain then that network is indeed weak. but to do a 51% attack is another thing someone has to do to remove proof from a thing that shows proof.
where as without a blockchain entirely. its much easier to remove proof of something happening. or say something happened without proof, or even just claim someone elses proof is not the most valid, true proof, but something old and now obsolete.
all done without any cost or effort

[Russlenat]

Blockchain is called the "public ledger", it's transparent to the sender and the receiver and it's uneditable so it's secured. Also, because it's decentralized, that makes it more reliable, and that's the reason why this technology has become successful because it's safe and transparent.

[DaveF]

That is an overly simplified question.
A well written non blockchain based coin is probably more secure then a poorly written one with low hashrate.

Look at the 51% attacks that have happened on other blockchains. Look at the ETH DAO hack and rollback and split to ETC and so on.

So if you are talking about BTC vs other major coins then one with a public blockchain is more secure.
If you are asking in general, it's a very broad question with no good answer.

-Dave

hmm

ok i just wrote a transaction paying Dave some coin..
........... .............. ...........
... oh dave you didnt get it.? can you prove you didnt get it? because my records say you did.
oh wait. i didnt use a blockchain coin.. oh well seems you prefer to not use blockchains so,  guess we are settled.

see the issues with this scenario?

if someone could 51% a blockchain then that network is indeed weak. but to do a 51% attack is another thing someone has to do to remove proof from a thing that shows proof.
where as without a blockchain entirely. its much easier to remove proof of something happening. or say something happened without proof, or even just claim someone elses proof is not the most valid, true proof, but something old and now obsolete.
all done without any cost or effort

You seem to be missing the point of my reply.
The OP did not ask about BTC but blockchain coins in general.

I pointed out that yes blockchain coins are better with all things being equal.

But in the real world not all things are equal.

The franky1 coin could have some of the best programming out there but if it has a very low hashrate it's not secure because it can be hit with a 51% attack.
The DaveF coin could have very high hashrate but was written poorly so things that should not be able to be manipulated / changed can be changed.

-Dave

[franky1]

i did not mention bitcoin once in my scenario.... anyways. moving on

my point is even if a blockchain has just 1 person hashing with a 2014 360gh asic. just having a blockchain transaction is safer than having a unconfirmed privately exchanged smart contract.

if a malicious person wanted to edit the ledger. he cant just delete an email or wipe his computer. he would have to buy a 400gh asic to over power the other person. and then go back and edit the blockchain and then create enough blocks after the edit to overtake the other person.. thats alot more work than just deleting a non-blockchain smart contract

yes having a blockchain like bitcoin with 1.6million asics running at 110,000gh each is even stronger.. as it would need someone to buy 2millions asics of same/better hashpower each to even have a change of editing the blockchain

but..
even the cypherpunks in the 1990's-2008 knew that smart contracting alone (pre-blockchain) was not 'good money'. it was the invention of blockchains even at just CPU mining speeds that showed more security compared to privately traded smart contracts

[pooya87]

just having a blockchain transaction is safer than having a unconfirmed privately exchanged smart contract.

The point that you don't seem to want to understand is that you can't make a comparison like this with such a broad spectrum. For example you don't know how the private smart contract on a centralized platform is being enforced and you also can't know the security of the public blockchain is.
Such things have to be compared on case by case basis.

[franky1]

just having a blockchain transaction is safer than having a unconfirmed privately exchanged smart contract.

The point that you don't seem to want to understand is that you can't make a comparison like this with such a broad spectrum. For example you don't know how the private smart contract on a centralized platform is being enforced and you also can't know the security of the public blockchain is.
Such things have to be compared on case by case basis.

cypherpunks 1998-2008 were looking at "smart contracts" in regards to 'p2p money' and kept running into the issue of who gets to audit/arbitrate/settle in situations of disagreement, dishonesty, blackmail, extortion.

smart contracts without blockchains can work in times of utopia/mutual agreement/co-operation. but the world is not perfect. which is why courts, auditors, arbitrators are used. and blockchains solves that by having an audit system that cant be corrupt as easily as a smart contract alone.

yes a blockchain of just 1cpu hash power is not as strong as a blockchain of 1.5million ASICS.. but in times of dishonesty. a blockchain of 1CPU is 1 step removed from the problem. because to defraud a blockchain require more then just deleting a file. it include having to do some work to replace someone elses copy.

yes PoS blockchains are less secure then 1.5millions asics. but a little more secure then 1cpu PoW . but blockchains as a whole is one extra step that prevents a smart contract from being simply deleted from existance.

oh and also
we all know that a centralised database or even a centralised blockchain is a single point of failure. where as even a cpu mined and 5 archive node public blockchain is more secure.

we can even go further.
where there is a network of independent peers. that have created their own unit of measure[token] that has no blockchain to settle against. by itself. is unsecure compared to settled blockchain coins. no matter what the blockchain hash mechanism strength is

we can go even further then that.
even if all users of a network of independent peers. all got a copy of everyones smart contract. but NONE of these were timestamped into a locked system which can categorically identify any edits/deletions. (by use of comparing hashes). is less secure then a ledger that is locking transactions into a block with a hash that can be used to test the block for edits

do you now see why the cypherpunks actually got excited and interested in blockchains invention.
when a guy in late 2008 announced an idea, and within a few months had a working software to show it working. it completely solved a problem cypherpunks were trying to scratch their head about for 10 years in regards to p2p money

[Fundamentals Of]

That is probably right provided that the blockchain you are talking about is decentralized like that of the blockchain of Bitcoin. If the blockchain is not decentralized, it is useless because the control is still in the hands of the people who are in control of the blockchain. It is not whether the person who is in control is worth the trust or not, it is that the entire ledger or data storage should not be entrusted to a single or few entities. Otherwise the security is very weak. Attacks could only be directed to the ones in control, and entire cryptocurrency will fall. That's how I understand it.

[hd49728]

Nothing is perfect and not all blockchains are healthy and good to use.

Bitcoin is the healthiest blockchain because it is truly decentralized from network to development. Its hashrate is very high and is the highest among all cryptocurrencies. Its upgrades must be approved by communities consensus that is different than many altcoin projects when such decisions can be make by a single person or core team, very centralized.

https://www.crypto51.app/
https://howmanyconfs.com/

[franky1]

its probably better to list it in order of risk starting from most risky

signed IOU by one person on a post-it note handed to another person
signed IOU by both people on post-it notes handed to both people
cryptographic signed IOU(smart contract) by one person handed to another person
cryptographic signed IOU(smart contract) by both people handed to both people
cryptographic signed IOU(smart contract) by one person handed to another person and a independent witness
cryptographic signed IOU(smart contract) by both people handed to both people and a independent witness
smart contract(as described 2 sig) locked to a PoS coin of 3 peers
smart contract(as described 2 sig) locked to a PoW coin of 3 miners
smart contract(as described 1 sig) locked to a PoS coin of 3 peers
smart contract(as described 1 sig) locked to a PoW coin of 3 miners
smart contract(as described 2 sig) locked to a PoS coin of hundreds of peers
smart contract(as described 2 sig) locked to a PoW coin of hundreds of miners
smart contract(as described 1 sig) locked to a PoS coin of hundreds of peers
smart contract(as described 1 sig) locked to a PoW coin of hundreds of miners

the reason i list that a 2 signature PoS/PoW is less secure then a 1signature PoS/PoW is because in a 1 signature scheme. once locked. its settled, done permissionless. where as a 2 signature scheme on a blockchain requires permission to move or future spend meaning there are terms. conditions. loopholes and ways to manipulate the scheme(one side refuses to sign)

the reason why PoS is weaker then similar involved PoW is because PoS 'stake' is not of a lost 'cost'. so doesnt take much to break the chain of transactions.

if a PoS has hundreds involved then the competition for PoS block solving requires investing(but not losing) value to be a front runner top of the list block solver. but in similar peer numbers. a PoW will be higher because more work/cost is involved.

some may argue that if a PoS uses a 1024bit key to sign a block vs a PoW of just 256bit hashing, must make the PoS stronger. this is not the case. because a single hacker could obtain a key of a PoS toplister much easier then buying hundreds of gear to have a high PoW rate

[Drnice]

Bitcoin being the head of blockchain technology, which is known as the most secured technology in the crypto world, and some other technologies could have some good security features too. But Bitcoin or blockchain technology being uneditable, transparent and  decentralized makes it to be more reliable and secured. It is one or the most oldest technology of crypto currencies that is still surviving and leading the crypto train over the years.