<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div>These sorts of proposals are all just ways of saying block chains kind of suck and we should go back to using trusted third parties. </div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No.</div><div>Different approaches have different trade-offs, and thus different areas of applicability.<br>
</div><div><br></div><div>Proof-of-work's inherent disadvantage is that it takes some time until transaction becomes practically irreversible. On the other hand, it has advantages like neutrality, censorship-resistance, high degree of security, etc.</div>
<div><br></div><div>TTP can be very efficient, but doesn't have advantages mentioned above.</div><div><br></div><div>It is possible to combine several different approaches into one hybrid systems. For example, classic Bitcoin PoW blockchain can be used for settlements, large transactions, savings and so on. While TTP-based payment system will be used for small-value transaction like buying coffee.</div>
<div><br></div><div>In this case you get benefits of both approaches. Censorship-resistance is irrelevant when one buys a cup of coffee with his pocket money, isn't it?</div><div><br></div><div>For some reason, instead of considering these hybrid solutions (which can also address scalability problems), you want to make PoW-based system more complex to be applicable for real-time transaction too.</div>
<div><br></div><div>This will, likely, weaken advantages provided by PoW, and also it won't provide any hard guarantees, and, if implemented, will undermine development of alternative solutions.</div><div><br></div></div>
</div></div>