Limits Ethereum: why malicious minors cannot assign bitcoins

Ethereum, one of the most popular blockchain platforms, is concerned about controversy because of its design and implementation. One of the most important concerns about Ethereum is the fact that malicious minors cannot attribute a large number of bitcoins to themselves. In this article, we will investigate why this is the case and explore what is happening if Rudar tries to use this restriction.

Bases: What is a minor?

A minor is an individual or an organization that uses powerful computers (called mineral devices) to confirm transactions on the Ethereum network and the creation of new blocks. The main objective of minors is to resolve complex mathematical puzzles, which require significant computer power. When the minor solves these puzzles, they are rewarded with newly created bitcoins, as well as compensation for transactions from other users.

Why can’t malicious minors affect bitcoins?

Now let’s answer the question: why can’t malicious minors affect bitcoins if they wish? The answer lies in the design of the Ethereum network. In particular, it has something to do with the consensus of transactions and work evidence (POW).

Transactions confirm minors

On the Ethereum network, each transaction checks more minors before adding it to the blockchain. This procedure requires a significant amount of computer power of these minors, which can be expensive to maintain. Consequently, the cost of verification of transactions becomes incredibly high for malicious actors.

Proof of consensual work (POW)

The Ethereum network uses the consensus algorithm for proof of work (POW) to ensure its blockchain. This means that network nodes are in competition to resolve complex mathematical puzzles, which requires significant computer power. The first minor to solve these puzzles must add a new blockchain transaction block and broadcast it in the net.

** Why minors Summiers Auto

If the malicious minor tried to assign Bitcoine to easily resolve the puzzle, several reasons would prevent this from happening:

• Cost : The strength of the computer necessary to manage the puzzle is important, which is extremely difficult to afford for a minor.

• Network effect : With many minors in competition to treat puzzles and add new blockchain blocks, an incentive for an attempt at self-light exploration is low. It is unlikely that a minor will be able to overcome this collective effort.

• Need energy : The energy required to start powerful mining equipment is significant, which can result in significant costs for the minor and the network.

What happens if minors try self-payment?

If the minor could somehow afford the power of the computer necessary to resolve the puzzles independently, several things could happen:

• Block Award Inflation : As more and more minors are trying to use mining, a price block to resolve puzzles would be reduced, because less transactions would be confirmed.

• An increase in energy consumption : increased energy consumption of the execution of mining equipment would result in higher electricity costs and potentially harm the environment.

• Congestion of the network : With more minors in competition for computer energy, the congestion of the network could become an important question, leading to a slower processing of transactions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, malicious minors cannot give way Bitcoine due to the design of the consensual algorithm of evidence of the Ethereum network (POW) and the costs associated with resolved mathematical puzzles. Although this may seem an intriguing idea of ​​a malicious actor to try autonomous mining, these are significant risks for minors and networks as a whole.