> See how the hash-chaining mechanism of a blockchain means that even a single corrupt or tampered-with block will invalidate the entire chain after it.
Is that strictly required to understand that the entire chain is invalidated? Since blocks are in order, if block X's previous hash doesn't check out, can't we just assume that every block thereafter is also invalid? Effectively a fork has happened at X-1 block.
I'm guessing there are more dynamics (speed?) that come into this. Maybe the following questions will make it more clear:
1. How do the blocks update when there is a change in a past block?
2. In the real world, what process does a node use to validate the chain on an ongoing basis?
Someone can mine and broadcast blocks that reference an old block, nodes will store the block, in case more are published and it becomes the longest chain, but will otherwise ignore it.
Is that strictly required to understand that the entire chain is invalidated? Since blocks are in order, if block X's previous hash doesn't check out, can't we just assume that every block thereafter is also invalid? Effectively a fork has happened at X-1 block.
I'm guessing there are more dynamics (speed?) that come into this. Maybe the following questions will make it more clear:
1. How do the blocks update when there is a change in a past block?
2. In the real world, what process does a node use to validate the chain on an ongoing basis?