Amazon’s Aggressive Anti-Union Tactics Revealed in Leaked 45-Minute Video

Screenshot: Amazon training video (Amazon)

Amazon, the country’s second-largest employer, has so far remained immune to any attempts by U.S. workers to form a union. With rumblings of employee organization at Whole Foods—which Amazon bought for $13.7 billion last year—a 45-minute union-busting training video produced by the company was sent to Team Leaders of the grocery chain last week, according to sources with knowledge of the store’s activities. Recordings of that video, obtained by Gizmodo, provide valuable insight into the company’s thinking and tactics.

Each of the video’s six sections, which the narrator states are “specifically designed to give you the tools that you need for success when it comes to labor organizing,” take place in an animated simulacrum of a Fulfillment Center. The video’s narrators are clad in the reflective vests typical of the real-world setting. “We are not anti-union, but we are not neutral either,” the video states, drawing a distinction that would likely be largely academic to potential organizers. To expound on what non-neutrality might look like, the video adds in plain language (emphasis ours):

We do not believe unions are in the best interest of our customers, our shareholders, or most importantly, our associates. Our business model is built upon speed, innovation, and customer obsession—things that are generally not associated with union. When we lose sight of those critical focus areas we jeopardize everyone’s job security: yours, mine, and the associates’.”

Amazon’s anti-union training video comes to light amid an image crisis for the company. Years of reporting on low pay and poor working conditions reached a fever pitch late this summer when Senator Bernie Sanders proposed legislationdirectly challenging the company’s reliance on social subsidy programs. Likewise, Amazon lost more than it gained in a charm offensive ploy that rewarded its warehouse ambassadors for tweeting nice things about the company—like how they are free to use facility restrooms and are not slaves.

Gizmodo has opted to not publish the video itself in order to maintain source anonymity.

Throughout, the video claims Amazon prefers a “direct management” structure where employees can bring grievances to their bosses individually, rather than union representation. However, a number of warehouse workers have expressed to Gizmodo in past reporting that they believed voicing their concerns led to retaliatory scrutiny or firing. “[Amazon] preaches that they have this open-door policy and then when you try to go through that open door, instead of being allowed in, you are now set up,” a former Fulfillment Center worker in Indiana told Gizmodo. “You’re somebody that talks and you’re somebody they’re gonna absolutely make the job as difficult as humanly possible for.” Another Floridian Fulfillment Center worker told Gizmodo he sent complaints of low pay to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’s public-facing email address ( and claims management was “harassing me since I sent that email.” He said he was terminated shortly afterward.

We’ve reached out to Amazon for comment regarding its response to employees who raise concerns and will update when we hear back.

T.I.P.S. are the tactics Amazon advises management not to use, according to the video.
Screenshot: Amazon training video (Amazon)

The video provides some background on the National Labor Relations Act—the 1935 law that guaranteed workers the right to organize, take collective action, and strike—and the various protect activities employees can engage in. But the meat of the video begins in section four, entitled “Warning Signs.”

Here are a few of the (extensive) examples “that can indicate associate disengagement, vulnerability to organizing, or early organizing activity,” according to the video:

  • Use of words like “living wage” and “steward”
  • Distribution of petitions and fliers
  • Associates raising concerns on behalf of their coworkers
  • Wearing union t-shirts, hats, or jackets
  • Workers “who normally aren’t connected to each other suddenly hanging out together”
  • Workers showing an “unusual interest in policies, benefits, employee lists, or other company information”
  • Increased negativity in the workplace
  • “[A]ny other associate behavior that is out of character”

The training video then asks managers to listen to 10 hypothetical employees and select whether their remarks constitute a “warning sign” or “innocent interaction.” Workers loitering in the break room after their shift, asking for a list of the site’s roster, or complaining about the absence of a living wage fall into the “warning sign” category.

Screenshot: Amazon training video (Amazon)

In following sections, Amazon teaches managers that, where talking to subordinates about unions is concerned, “almost anything you say is lawful,” even providing some examples of what statements are completely kosher even if they’re clearly meant to inspire fear of organization (emphasis ours):

“You would never threaten to close your building just because associates joined a union. But you might need to talk about how having a union could hurt innovation which could hurt customer obsession which could ultimately threaten the building’s continued existence.

While warning managers that activities like threatening employees cross a line, giving personal opinions that accomplish nearly the same are within their rights. “Opinions can be mild, like, ‘I’d rather work with associates directly,’ or strong: ‘Unions are lying, cheating rats.’ The law protects both!”

Throughout, managers are encouraged to express opinions against unions to their workers, and any of signs of potential organization are supposed to be escalated to human resources and general managers immediately.

Sadly, these kinds of tactics are not unique to Amazon. TargetLowe’s, and Walmart have all faced criticism in recent years for producing training videos intended to quash employee organizing.

“The truth is that [Whole Foods Market] is afraid of organized labor and these trainings speak to that fear,” a current Whole Foods organizer told Gizmodo. “I think the parts in particular where it teaches team leaders how to subtly manipulate conversations with their team members is just really gross. It is representative of the worst parts of WFM culture.”

Amazon declined to comment on the record on the video but told Gizmodo it shares training videos regularly on many topics.

By any indication, Amazon is seriously concerned about the prospect of Whole Foods, or any arm of their business, becoming unionized. Maybe it’s time for workers to consider why their bosses are so worried.

Update 2:30pm: After Amazon declined multiple requests to comment for this story, the company issued the following statement proceeding publication. Amazon asserts that we “cherry-picked soundbites” from the video and that our characterization does not convey Amazon’s “view on how to create career opportunities for employees.” We’ve published the statement in full below and requested that Amazon share the video with us so that readers can watch it for themselves.

“We’re perplexed as to why Gizmodo takes issue with a company wanting to better engage its employees, train hundreds of managers to maintain an open and direct dialogue with associates, and create channels to drive innovation on behalf of the customer in a caring and inclusive environment. The reporter clearly cherry-picked soundbites from the video to meet his editorial objective and do not align with our view on how to create career opportunities for employees.

“In the U.S., the average hourly wage for a full-time associate in our fulfillment centers, including cash, stock, and incentive bonuses, is over $15/hour before overtime. That’s in addition to our full benefits package that includes health, vision and dental insurance, retirement, generous parental leave, and skills training for in-demand jobs through our Career Choice program, which has over 16,000 participants. We encourage anyone to come see for themselves by taking a tour at one of our fulfillment centers — learn more at”

Have information on Whole Foods, or Amazon in general? Send us a tip via email,Keybase, or anonymously via our Secure Drop server.

Amazon’s Disgusting Anti-Union Video For Company Managers LEAKED

‘Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist’: Sanders Introduces Bill to Break Up Nation’s Largest Wall Street Banks

“We must end, once and for all, the scheme that is nothing more than a free insurance policy for Wall Street: the policy of ‘too big to fail.'”

Activists protest in front of the DC office of Goldman Sachs November 16, 2009 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)

With Wall Street banks as big and profitable as ever ten years after their reckless criminality sparked the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced legislation on Wednesday that would break up Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and other so-called “too big to fail” financial institutions that pose a major systemic risk to the American economy.

“No financial institution should be so large that its failure would cause catastrophic risk to millions of Americans or to our nation’s economic well being.”
—Sen. Bernie Sanders

“No financial institution should be so large that its failure would cause catastrophic risk to millions of Americans or to our nation’s economic well being,” Sanders said in a statement. “We must end, once and for all, the scheme that is nothing more than a free insurance policy for Wall Street: the policy of ‘too big to fail.'”

Titled “The Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act,” Sanders’ legislation would break up any bank that has a total exposure of more than three percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP)—the equivalent to $584.5 billion in today’s dollars.

If passed, Sanders’ bill would break up of America’s six largest financial institutions—JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley—as well as massive non-bank financial corporations like AIG and Prudential.

“These six major financial institutions have over $10 trillion in assets, equivalent to 54 percent of our entire GDP and have a combined total exposure that exceeds 68 percent of our nation’s GDP,” according to a summary of the new legislation released by Sanders’ office.

In a Facebook Live video on Wednesday, Sanders discussed the details of the new legislation with Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.)—who is planning to introduce a companion bill in the House—and economist Simon Johnson, who joined a large groupof financial experts, consumer advocacy groups, and labor unions in endorsing the Vermont senator’s bill:

“The new Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist proposed legislation from Senator Bernie Sanders is short and to the point,” Johnson said in a statement on Wednesday. “The largest banks and other highly leveraged financial institutions are simply too big—and pose a real danger to our continued economic recovery.  Make them break up into smaller pieces, bringing more competition, better service and lower risks for the American economy.”

“Too big to fail should be too big to exist,” Rep. Sherman concluded. “Never again should a financial institution be able to demand a federal bailout.”

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Breaking with Wall Street: L.A. Puts It to the Voters

Sparking Progressive Fury, Tom Perez Says DNC Would Continue to Back Any Democrat Who Votes for Kavanaugh

“The invisible chokehold of big money vs. people, vs. the testimony of women on gruesome display. Again.”

“What’s the point of electing Dems to swing districts (if that’s the excuse) if they don’t vote with Dems?” asked progressive activist Nomiki Konst. (Photo: Texas Tribune Festival/Screengrab)

Even as he continues to denounce Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh as an enormous threat to women and declare that the judge’s sham confirmation process is a “vivid illustration” of why it’s crucial for Democrats to retake the Senate in November, Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair Tom Perez outraged progressives on Friday by suggesting that the DNC would continue to stand behind any Democrat who decides to vote yes on Kavanaugh.

Asked by Wall Street Journal reporter Reid Epstein if the DNC would “continue to work to reelect Democratic senators if they vote” for Kavanaugh, Perez briefly ducked and dodged before finally answering, “Of course we’re going to continue.”

While several red-state Democrats who were previously viewed as possible yes votes for Kavanaugh—such as Sens. Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Jon Tester (Mont.), and Joe Donnelly (Ind.)—vowed to vote against his confirmation after hearing the compelling testimony of his accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) are still undecided.

Watch Perez’s comment, which came during an on-stage interview at the Texas Tribune Festival in Austin, Texas on Friday:

Perez’s remarks were quickly denounced by progressives as both an egregious political mistake and a betrayal of the millions of women and allies who have been working tirelessly to defeat Kavanaugh, who has been credibly accused of sexual assault.

“Basically that gives them a pass. Not smart. This is why we lose so much ground to the GOP,” James Zogby, founder of the Arab American Institute, wrote on Twitter. “They’re carnivores and we play too nice. This isn’t just any issue, it’s a defining issue for what kind of country we will be.”

“When you say that it’s fine for Democrats to back [Kavanaugh], you are saying that the rage and anguish and fear that people—especially women—feel about his potential confirmation is meaningless to you!” wrote Splinter‘s Jack Mirkinson. “This is not complicated.”

“At this point,” Mirkinson concluded, “voting against Brett Kavanaugh should be the most basic thing possible for anyone calling themselves a Democrat!”

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Amazon to Raise Minimum Wage to $15 for All U.S. Workers

A worker at an Amazon warehouse in Aurora, Colo.CreditCreditRick T. Wilking/Getty Images

By Karen Weise

SEATTLE — Amazon said on Tuesday that it would raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour for its United States employees, a rare acknowledgment that it was feeling squeezed by political pressure and a tight labor market. The raises apply for part-time workers and those hired through temporary agencies.

The company said it would also lobby Washington to raise the federal minimum wage, which has been set at $7.25 for almost a decade.

The new wages will apply to more than 250,000 Amazon employees, including those at the grocery chain Whole Foods, as well as the more than 100,000 seasonal employees it plans to hire for the holiday season. The change will not apply to contract workers. It goes into effect on Nov. 1.

“We listened to our critics, thought hard about what we wanted to do, and decided we want to lead,” Amazon’s chief executive, Jeff Bezos, said in a statement. “We’re excited about this change and encourage our competitors and other large employers to join us.”

Employment has become one of Amazon’s most potent political vulnerabilities as well as its most important political message. The shift to online shopping, led by Amazon, has forced many retailers like Toys “R” Us and Sears to shut down or lay off workers across the country. President Trump has criticized the company for hurting traditional retailers, and some lawmakers have called for the company to be broken up.

At the same time, jobs at Amazon’s warehouses and sorting centers have boomed. The company now employs about 575,000 people worldwide, up more than 50 percent in the past year, a fact Amazon frequently plays up.

But the pay of those workers has become a growing issue for activists, especially as the fortunes of Amazon and Mr. Bezos have skyrocketed. Amazon’s market capitalization passed $1 trillion last month, though it has since fallen slightly below that level. Mr. Bezos is now the richest person in the world, with a net worth of $165 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

“I think they saw the writing on the wall. I think they saw the calculation that it was indefensible that a man whose wealth is over $150 billion be able to continue paying workers wages that are so low that they are forced to rely on federal benefits,” Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont said in an interview after the announcement. “Smart people are willing to change course.”

Mr. Sanders and labor organizers have criticized the wages and conditions of Amazon’s work force. They have focused on employees at the company’s warehouses, and with the contract drivers who make last-mile deliveries. Some workers at the grocery chain Whole Foods, which Amazon bought last year, have recently begun a push to organize a union.

Amazon had been paying a starting minimum wage of $11 an hour, and said its average wage for full-time workers at the fulfillment centers where it packages and sorts orders was more than $15 an hour. It had not disclosed pay for part-time and contract workers. Amazon said workers who now make more than $15 an hour will also get a pay bump, though it won’t say how much.

As recently as last month Amazon was resisting the pressure. Mr. Sanders had pointed to new financial disclosures from the company showing its median pay was $28,446, meaning half of its employees made less. Amazon, which is typically reserved when responding to criticism, publicly pushed back, saying Mr. Sanders’s statements were “misleading” and that median pay for its full-time employees in the United States was $34,123.

Mr. Sanders said he was particularly surprised to see Mr. Bezos raising pay to $15 almost immediately, rather than phasing it in over several years.

“That is bold, no question about it,” he said. Mr. Bezos thanked Mr. Sanders on Twitter for praising the change. “We’re excited about this, and also hope others will join in,” Mr. Bezos wrote.

Jeff Bezos


Thank you @SenSanders. We’re excited about this, and also hope others will join in.

Bernie Sanders


What Mr. Bezos has done today is not only enormously important for Amazon’s hundreds of thousands of employees, it could well be a shot heard around the world. I urge corporate leaders around the country to follow Mr. Bezos’ lead. 

The union-backed Fight for $15 campaign, which has been calling for a higher minimum wage for six years, called Amazon’s plan a major victory. It is organizing strikes in several states this week to build support for unions in advance of the midterm elections. Fight for $15 says more than a fifth of the population in the United States now lives in a state or city that has passed a $15 wage target, including California and New York, two major markets for Amazon. Increasingly, the company is putting operations close to and inside city borders to enable quick delivery.

“Workers worldwide have been standing up, joining together, and winning!” the organization said in a message on Twitter. “Amazon is just the latest company to respond.”

Amazon has added robots at its warehouses and has expanded experiments like Amazon Go, its cashierless convenience stores that require few employees. But it still has a huge need for workers, particularly as the holiday season approaches. With the United States unemployment rate below 4 percent, the tight labor market has made it harder to attract the workers it and other retailers need.

The smaller supply of prospective workers has slowly been pushing wages higher. The average wage for retail sales workers across the United States is $13.20 an hour, according to federal data. For all retail workers, including salespeople, cashiers and supervisors, the average wage is $18.85.

Last year Target announced it would raise minimum pay to $15 an hour by 2020, and Costco raised its to $14 an hour. In January, Walmart, the country’s largest private employer, said it was raising starting wages to $11 after the new tax law passed, though critics noted that it was laying off workers as it tried to quietly close 63 Sam’s Club stores.

“At the moment in the United States, unemployment is pretty low, and Amazon may be struggling to recruit and retain employees,” said Alan Manning, an economics professor at the London School of Economics who has studied minimum wage policies. “It’s also a bit of good publicity.”

Indeed, less than an hour after the announcement on Tuesday, Dave Clark, Amazon’s senior vice president in charge of operations, posted a video on Twitter of employees at a fulfillment center in Southern California cheering as he broke the news to them.

Dave Clark@davehclark

Shared the new Amazon $15 minimum wage with the team here at LGB3 early this morning! Best All Hands Ever!!! 👊😃

Amazon also announced minimum pay increases to £10.50 in London and £9.50 elsewhere in Britain. It said the minimum pay would benefit 17,000 Amazon employees and more than 20,000 seasonal workers in the country.

The wage increase comes as the company plans to announce the location of its second headquarters before the end of this year. The new site, which Amazon says will eventually employ up to 50,000 highly paid technology workers, is widely expected to get what could be billions of dollars in tax breaks and other incentives from state and local governments.

The size of the potential taxpayer payout, and the secrecy around the bidding process, have frustrated even some lawmakers in cities hoping to land the headquarters. With the company’s promise to help lobby for a higher minimum wage, it attached itself to a progressive cause. Almost all of the 20 regions on Amazon’s shortlist are run by Democrats, so the increase may buy the company some local good will.

It also lets Amazon, which accounts for almost half of all online sales in the United States, ratchet up pressure on other retailers. “Once you’re paying a higher wage, you tend to want your competitors to also pay a higher wage,” said Professor Manning. “If your costs are going up, you’d also quite like your rivals’ costs to go up as well.”

Amazon provided almost no details in its announcement about how it plans to push for a higher federal minimum wage, and a representative at the company declined to elaborate. But the business has, in recent years, built one of the largest lobbying teams in Washington, spending $13 million last year.

Given the political divide in the current Congress, Mr. Sanders said it still seemed unlikely that higher wages would pass. Instead, Mr. Sanders said, it’s more likely to become a campaign issue, as well as put pressure on other large employers. Mr. Bezos’s “decision today is going to have a ripple effect to other corporations and other cities and states,” he said.

And unions say Amazon is not off the hook either. Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, which is in the early stages of working with employees at Whole Foods, said in a statement that the wage increase was a “positive step.” But he said it did not address other conditions, like giving more workers full-time positions and alleviating the production pressure some employees feel.

“There is still so very much more that Amazon needs to do to be considered a decent employer,” he said.

Adam Satariano contributed reporting from London.

Follow Karen Weise on Twitter: @kyweise.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Amazon Raises Minimum Pay To $15 an Hour. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

Beginner’s Guide to Blockchain — Explaining it to a 5 Year Old

A Simple Guide to Understand Blockchain with a Real World Analogy

This is a two part series. You can find the link to the follow up article at the end of this article.

Everyone is talking about Bitcoin these days, from your barber to your friends working at stock market. Don’t worry this article is not about several other articles talking about making money from Bitcoin. However, I will try to help you understand the underlying technology which makes Bitcoin work and how this concept of blockchain can be useful in the coming decades.

Historical Overview

October 31, 2008, a white paper from an anonymous person or organization named Satoshi Nakamoto was published which explained a novel approach to send money from sender to receiver directly without involving any financial intermediaries. The paper gave a name to this concept — Bitcoin. Since, Bitcoin uses some underlying concepts of cryptography, this new way of exchanging money was categorized as cryptocurrency. The only purpose of Bitcoin was for financial transactions but researchers realized that its foundational technology can be harvested to build other secure and robust applications that can revolutionize the way current systems work. “Blockchain” was the name given to this foundational technology. Lots of technical words? Let’s simplify!

What is Blockchain? — A Real World Analogy

Let’s imagine that you live in a city, which has a big parking space to park 200 cars at one time (assume that the parking space just has a ground floor). This parking space has a main gate which stays locked and is only opened when a car moves in or out. Now let’s analyze this single parking building from different points of view —

  • Price: Since some private company built this parking space exclusively for parking purposes and all the maintenance cost will be beared by the owner company, there will be a high renting fee for renting out a single parking space.
  • Security: If thieves get access to the main door, they can easily get to your car (take its wheels, or fuel, or damage the brake, anything!)
  • Limit: What if the number of cars in your city grow from 200 to 300? The parking space will not have enough space for all cars and some other private agency will have to built a new parking space.
  • Trusted: You trust the parking space company and they are responsible for taking care of security and reliability.
  • Centralized: Since all the cars are in one building, we can consider it to be a centralized parking.

Now, let’s modify the current scenario. Imagine that there are 200 houses in your city and all 200 houses have two garages each. However, to simplify our explanation, let’s assume each house just has one car (all cars filling up all the slots of big parking space described above). So, each house has one empty garage out of the two garages available. Now, let’s say people of the city decide to rent out the extra garage to anyone who needs a parking. This model of providing parking space will solve the problem of parking 200 cars or more cars (in case people move in and out of the city) without the need of building any central bigger parking space for the entire city. Similar to the previous scenario, let’s analyze this scenario —

  • Price: Since people didn’t built the second garage exclusively for renting purposes and the cost of maintenance will be little, the cost to rent that extra space will be low comparatively to the big central parking space
  • Security: Each car is locked in a different garage therefore thieves will have to unlock all the garages to get access to the cars, thus providing more security. (Security in blockchain is a bit different but for simplicity let’s consider it this way for now!)
  • Limit: As the number of houses grow, assuming each new house also has extra garage space, the space to keep more cars will keep increasing. Thus, increasing the network of lessee and lessor.
  • Trustless: Since, no central authority controls these distributed parking spaces, we assume that there will be certain rules set by all the participating garage owners for renting out their places.
  • Decentralized: As mentioned in the previous point, these parking spaces are distributed throughout the city, we can consider it to be a decentralized parking.

The above analogy provides the foundation for understanding the actual technical infrastructure of the Blockchain.

Parking Model to Technical Model

The parking model presents a very basic overview of Blockchain in some real world language. Now, let’s try to match the components of our parking example to the actual technical model —

  • The big central parking is a centralized system like AWS, Google Cloud etc. (these cloud platforms are also distributed at some level but for the sake of simplicity, we will assume them to be a single entity).
  • The cars are the data and applications.
  • The distributed parking is a decentralized system — Blockchain.

Wait! We missed something.

All decentralized systems are not Blockchain!! Yes, Blockchain is a particular type of decentralized system that has a unique property. Which property? Let’s talk about it.

“Blocks” make Blockchain

Let’s revisit our distributed parking example and make a small change. Let’s assume that the lock to a particular garage is generated when a car is parked inside it (we assume that the same car goes to the same parking everyday). Also, assume that we have numbered all the distributed garages in serial order. The lock-key pair of garage #50 is based on the lock-key pair of garage #49 and also on the features (like color, weight, engine number etc.) of the car parked inside garage #50 and this process starts from garage #1 and moves till garage #200 or even more.

Each garage’s lock-key pair depends on the garage’s car features and previous garage’s lock-key pair.

Therefore, if a thief tries to break into garage #49 and modifies any feature of the car, say its color or registration number, the features of car in garage #49 will change which means a new lock-key pair for garage #49 will be generated and since lock-key-pair for garage #50 depends on lock-key pair of garage #49, lock-key pair for garage #50 will also change and same goes on for future garages.

Now, let’s make one last assumption that computing a lock-key pair requires lots of computing resources which means if we have to recompute these pairs in case any thief modifies any car feature in any garage, it will be practically impossible to recompute all the pairs again.

What happens if a lock-key pair is changed?

Hope you remember that we talked about all garage owners abiding by some rules? One of these rules is to check for a valid garage. A garage is valid if you can validate its lock-key pair and if any lock-key pair gets changed, the lock-key pairs of all the following garages get invalid because every pair depends on the previous pair. (Process to validate a lock-key pair for a particular garage is very fast as compared to generating one).

This dependence of one pair on the previous pair makes it a chain of garages and in technical world, these garages are “blocks”, thus getting its name — Blockchain (a chain of blocks).

Blocks in Blockchain are tied to the next block by hashes just like lock-key pairs in our example. Similar to garage example, if data in one block is modified, hashes need to be recalculated for all the following blocks and since calculating the hash is a very resource intensive operation, it gets practically impossible to do that and hence the network rules out the invalidated block. The calculation of hash is called mining and we will talk more about it in the next release of this series.

How do the blocks recover from modification?

All the computers on the blockchain network, keep a copy of the full blockchain, so if one block or one complete chain at a particular computer or multiple computers is modified, the whole network tries to compare it with their own copies of the full chain.

If majority of the nodes (or computers) on the network find that the modified chain is invalid, the modified chain is replaced with valid chain from other nodes. This makes Blockchain vulnerable to 51% attack. In simpler words, if more than 50% of the nodes on the network are malicious (or say have a modified chain), then the whole network can be compromised.


Phew!! that was a lot of information to digest. This was the part I of the full beginner’s guide, providing the basic foundation for Blockchain. I hope this article prepared you for some good discussion with your friends regarding Blockchain. Checkout the next release of this series where we talk about Ethereum, Smart Contracts and Mining.

If you enjoyed reading this, please click and hold “Claps” below and help your friends find it by sharing it with them. Thank You! 🙂

This was the first release of the series “Beginner’s Guide to Blockchain”. You can check out the second release here.

| Powered by Mantra & WordPress.