There are many possible PoW changes, with varying pros and cons. As broken as SHA2 is today, I would support (almost?) any of them.
-
-
It also stands as a threat to would be investors in the new PoW incentive model. Don't get to big/successful or we will burn your business down and possibly the whole network in the process.
-
And PoW changes don't hurt the network.
-
A PoW change is a natural defense mechanism of the Bitcoin network. If we started seeing block reorgs, the network can’t be trusted and is unusable. EVERYTHING would come to a screeching halt.
-
False. The only thing that couldn't be trusted is the commonly accepted number of confirmations considered safe right now.
-
No number of blocks could be considered confirmed in such a scenario (including the present reality, really). Which means the entire purpose of mining is gone.
-
That is not true at all. Unless shadow hardware that was never deployed is built, it would be very noticeable in block intervals(and difficulty over longer periods) that hashrate disappeared and is likely doing something shady.
-
It would likely simply result in a sliding scale of confirmations considered safe based on the value content of blocks that could indicate potential incentive to reorg and double spend.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Which it doesn't, so a non-issue.
-
This whole thread is a testament to a lack of consensus and serious concerns introduced to the incentive model in transitioning PoW, as well as a concern about the precedent set. Dont get to big as a miner or we will fork you off? That's anti competitive.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.