No, the incentive for competition remains unchanged. If there is a financial benefit to the protocol, they simply all upgrade.
Sure, there're types of transparency. Transparency in BetterHash's context means that if pools do something shady, it's very easy to find out. So it's pool transparency not miner transparency.
-
-
It's even more than that, though. We not only learn if they do something shady, but in order to do so their users have to take explicit action to implement a change!
-
Sadly, there is no way to identify if a pool is censoring transactions today, so even some transparency would be really nice, but going the extra step and making it a hard-to-change default is a pretty big difference, especially when it happens at once so you can compete.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Is this a change from traditional pools? Pools can fail to pay you for not censoring or they can censor and pay you. In a traditional pool you may not be sure they are censoring, but how hard is it to actually find out? A non-state censor is just losing money. What else is there?
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.

Decentralization needs active human participation.