There are many possible PoW changes, with varying pros and cons. As broken as SHA2 is today, I would support (almost?) any of them.
-
-
Replying to @LukeDashjr @austorms and
Relevant question, how do we know for sure, asic vendors sell miners as efficient as they use for themselves to mine..?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Don't tolerate ASIC vendors mining, for a start... That's absurd on its own right - companies should not compete against their customers like that.
5 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
-
Replying to @YangVentures @LukeDashjr and
If that was decreed, miners would just stop selling to customers and avoid the conflict.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @FluidFluxation @YangVentures and
And why can’t they do that?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @austorms @YangVentures and
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FluidFluxation @austorms and
Miners aren't infrastructure. Certainly not when centralised.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @LukeDashjr @FluidFluxation and
They are definitely infrastructure, miners are some of the most core infrastructure to the Bitcoin protocol.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @brian_trollz @LukeDashjr and
I’m going to agree with Luke here. When centralized and in control of > ~30% of the network hash rate, miners introduce a significant attack vector.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
So the devs should play government and anti-trust the mining operations?
-
-
Replying to @FluidFluxation @austorms and
Devs don't decide protocol changes. But I'm pretty sure you were already corrected on this already...
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. 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.