Re: Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"?
There is a serious inconsistency in how UTXO are referred.
On one hand, there is all the work of having a totally ordered consensus of transactions: the block chain. It would have been extremely simple to refer to a transaction output in a block chain: the block number, the transaction number in the block, and the output number in the transaction uniquely specify the UTXO. No need for a hash, no need for 256 bit !
On one hand, there is all the work of having a totally ordered consensus of transactions: the block chain. It would have been extremely simple to refer to a transaction output in a block chain: the block number, the transaction number in the block, and the output number in the transaction uniquely specify the UTXO. No need for a hash, no need for 256 bit !
Seriously you need to stop pretending you know anything about blockchain design.
This is beginners' egregious error.
Lol you just flunked the most fundamental issue of decentralized systems, which is there is no total order.
Well deep down blockchain are still a decentralized database, who preserve total order
Even if the way the chain will be constructed is not ordered, the system make in sort to garantee total order consistent across the network.
Incorrect. Chain reorganizations can happen at any time. PoW is probabilistically (i.e. never) final, not deterministically final.
Thus referencing by specific chains instead of by hash as @dinofelis suggested would be a DDoS security vulnerability at least and other cascading issues.
@IadixDev, that is why you leave the blockchain design work to me. I am expert. You are not.