Good point, I dpn't for sure. Well I just I have a sense Luke Dash Jr. is trustworthy here. He"s veey smart, makes sense, seems to hate Bitmain centralizing BTC mining, etc. Wants PoW change with consensus.
They can, they would, they shouldn't have to. Changing the PoW to cut off the largest infrastructure investor, or enforcing conflicts of interest on ASIC manufacturers are both anti capitalistic.
-
-
Miners aren't infrastructure. Certainly not when centralised.
-
They are definitely infrastructure, miners are some of the most core infrastructure to the Bitcoin protocol.
-
I think we're getting sidetracked by disagreements on definitions. If we show you Bitmain controls >51% of BTC mining hw then shouldn't you want a PoW change to mitigate the risk that Bitmain attacks BTC via mining. They can secretly mine w/ newest rigs, push miners to obey etc
-
No. I would not even support a POW change if we actually saw reorgs.
-
This seems to suggest you are yourself a bad actor and we should ignore you. Am I missing something?
-
1) It alters the operational costs of everyone, you can't guarantee it can be sustained. 2) You have no clue if miners would shift where they are mining in response and negate the attack. 3) You have no idea how manufacturing might change the attackers control short term.
-
As well with secondary layers like Lightning, channels that have been opened for long periods effectively make it a non-issue for many in terms of transacting through such an attack.
-
I did not get into Bitcoin to flinch and introduce radical changes every single time someone gets jumpy at what happens.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.