« GRITZ Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Predatory Sparrow 

By: De_Composed in GRITZ | Recommend this post (2)
Thu, 19 Jun 25 8:23 AM | 56 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Grits Breakfast of Champeens!
Msg. 09945 of 18117
(This msg. is a reply to 09940 by monkeytrots)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Zimbler0:

Re: mt's claim, “The correct answer is 'all but one' - One is NOT sufficient to provide valid transactions. At least TWO are required for validity.�
My answer was correct. The entire global network would have to be destroyed. If even one node survived - or a backup for that matter - the blockchain would be intact and the distributed network could be reestablished. This is a far fetched enough scenario to not be worth worrying about though. Bitcoins are not kept on centralized servers and nothing short of an extinction-level event would take all the nodes out.

I'm wondering, though, whether I misunderstood your initial question - hence, the reason this post is directed to you. It's possible for the private keys that some services manage for their customers to be lost in a server crash. If the backups also fail - and I've know that to happen - then some of the customers' accounts would be unreachable.

Is that the scenario you were asking about? If it is, then I apologize for not understanding.







- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Predatory Sparrow
By: monkeytrots
in GRITZ
Thu, 19 Jun 25 5:59 AM
Msg. 09940 of 18117

Actually DE, I don't need to grok it.

You actually reworded exactly the same answer I gave Zim.

And we are both wrong. THey don't ALL have to go down.

The correct answer is 'all but one' - One is NOT sufficient to provide valid transactions. At least TWO are required for validity.



« GRITZ Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next