From 0fb4115c5fe095f7266ffc6cf05c73dde54fe74b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sarah Jamie Lewis Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 19:22:11 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] grammar --- content/dags-and-decentralization.md | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/dags-and-decentralization.md b/content/dags-and-decentralization.md index 2fe2c97b..7a8058bc 100644 --- a/content/dags-and-decentralization.md +++ b/content/dags-and-decentralization.md @@ -17,9 +17,9 @@ In order to have secure transactions between parties, each party must be aware o Proof-of-Work blockchains solve this security of global state problem through mining (or rather, through the computational power required to produce valid blocks). An adversary can't doublespend without investing considerable resources to acquire the computational power required to produce valid blocks faster than the rest of the network. -The tradeoff proof-of-work blockchains make for this secure decentralization, is necessarily against scalability. Mining blocks is computationally expensive and takes time. The transactions per second is therefore tightly bound to the size of blocks produces and the rate at which they are produced. +The tradeoff proof-of-work blockchains make for this secure decentralization, is necessarily against scalability. Mining blocks is computationally expensive and takes time. The transactions per second is therefore tightly bound to the size of the produced blocks and the rate at which they are produced. -Any alternative system must provide a mechanism for achieving secure global state (and further, they must do so in a way that is more efficient than a proof-of-work blockchain) +Any alternative system must provide a mechanism for achieving secure global state (and further, they must do so in a way that is more efficient than a proof-of-work blockchain). And there we hit the crux of my issue with the new generation of distributed ledger structures, they all fundamentally fail to achieve the above.