Von Ralf Keuper

Da es sich beim The­ma Block­chain um ein sehr abs­trak­tes han­delt, sind Erklä­run­gen, die mit weni­gen Wor­ten, Meta­phern oder Ana­lo­gien aus­kom­men, von gro­ßem Nut­zen. Das hat sich wohl auch Jenn Webb gedacht, als sie fol­gen­den Ver­gleich zog:

One way to think about the block­chain is like lay­ers in a geo­lo­gi­cal for­ma­ti­on, or a gla­cier core sam­ple. The sur­face lay­ers may chan­ge with the sea­sons, or even be blown away befo­re they have time to sett­le. But once you go a few inches deep, geo­lo­gi­cal lay­ers beco­me more and more sta­ble. By the time you look a few hundred feet down, you are loo­king at a snapshot of the past that has remain­ed undis­tur­bed for mil­len­nia or mil­li­ons of years. In the block­chain, the most recent few blocks may be revi­sed if the­re is a chain recal­cu­la­ti­on due to a fork. The top six blocks are like a few inches of top­soil. But once you go deeper into the block­chain, bey­ond six blocks, blocks are less and less likely to chan­ge. After 100 blocks back, the­re is so much sta­bi­li­ty that the “coin­ba­se” tran­sac­tion, the tran­sac­tion con­tai­ning new­ly mined bit­co­ins, can be spent. A few thousand blocks back (a month) and the block­chain is sett­led histo­ry. It will never change.

Das hat gro­ße Ähn­lich­keit mit der Meta­pher der Zeit­schich­ten von Rein­hart Koselleck.

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert