Hash’s goal: a critical misconception in the Bitcoin ecosystem
For more than ten years, the Bitcoiners have relied on two basic rules to secure their decentralized network: block block and destination. However, a more detailed review of these principles reveals a potential mistake that could endanger the integrity of the blockchain.
Bitcoin whites explicitly state that the hash block must start with a certain number of zero. In addition, this number of zero is adjusted every two weeks by the process of hash and comparing its result with normal coincidence. This raises an important question: Why is the Hash target numbers corrected as powers 2?
Righting problem 2
In its present form, the target numbers of the Hash bitcoins follow the formula when the block is increasing by one. However, this does not coincide with the basic requirement to adjust the initial number of zero every two weeks. In other words, why can’t the hash goal be set as force 2, for example, 1, 3, 9 or 25? This would ensure that the block times remain constant and maintain network safety.
The consequences of a solid Hash’s goal
If bitcoinceri followed the traditional path of increasing hash target numbers one every time the new block is mined, this would have significant consequences for blockchain. For example::
- Inconsistent blocks times: Fixed hash goal could lead to inconsistent blocking times, as different miners can work with different hash target values.
- Increased safety risks
: With greater variability in block times and potential irregularities, network safety could be reduced.
3.
Conclusion
While Bitcoin’s white paper outlines specific requirements for the block and hash target, it cannot solve the basic problem of fixed hash target numbers as powers 2. This supervision has significant consequences for blockchain safety and integrity.
A new approach should be considered to maintain the stability and reliability of bitcoin: the aim of hash that pursues the predictable model, such as an increase by one every week or the use of a specific force of 2 (eg 1, 3 or 9). This would ensure consistency in block times, reduced safety risks and improved consensus throughout the network.
What does this mean for the future of bitcoin?
The consequences of this problem are far -reaching. If the aim with a solid hash is accepted, this could lead to increased control of regulators, financial institutions and other stakeholders relying on secured decentralized networks.
As the country of cryptocurrencies is constantly evolving, developers and enthusiasts must be vigilant in addressing these basic questions. The next step for the bitcointer is likely to include examining alternative approaches that prefer consistency, safety and stability, above all.