This interwoven encryption you describe involves solving time-consuming and essentially random mathematical puzzles, algorithms, as I understand it. This is how it is always described. Of course I understand the ultimate point of this puzzle-solving and how it protects against a major hack. I am just asking: instead of creating a set of random puzzles to do this interweaving, why don’t you use real puzzles? Like the endless processing required for radio astronomy?
The whole basis of blockchain is lack of trust. There is no protection against some absolutely gigantic supercomputer out-churning all of you. The best defence is still your own secure perimeter, your own secure internal environment, and your own distributed and cross-validated data. I do not believe blockchain remotely scales as a major worldwide trading platform, it is already consuming vast amounts of energy and bandwidth to handle a minuscule amount of the world’s monetary exchanges.
This is why I ask: why can’t the encryption-enabling algorithms be working on sensible, real problems, instead of random and arbitrary mathematical puzzles that take up machine time just for the sake of taking up machine time and establishing “proof of work”? To make the whole enterprise a little more sensible and sustainable? Or are we still missing each other completely here?
