If we are to be rude I could just point out that geographically decentralized is a nonsense term—you mean distributed—and that dispersion is ineffective given the game of scale + energy use signals location. But no—I am not conveniently anything. I gave you time. Remove your ego.
-
-
lol why do you bring up ego I’m addressing your _argument_
- and no you still have not addressed my 2nd point. Not sure what you mean by ineffective. Hard for Chinese govt to seize hardware in China AND Iceland. That’s what I mean by geographically decentralized.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
-Because of your response. -Which 2nd point? -Not in the grand scheme —plus you are limiting the problem arbitrarily, it is not only a risk of seizure and it is not only state actors one must worry about.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Hugo Nguyen Retweeted Hugo Nguyen
Hugo Nguyen added,
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @anotherday____ and
> Not in the grand scheme Can you elaborate? You still have not given any reasons to back up your argument that hardware dispersion is ineffective against the state.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Can illustrate. Saudi Arabia just killed a journalist at their embassy. What was US response? Again the scope is false but question is then in which scenarios would state seize hardware (under what pretext). Some would lead countries to cooperate others would not. Lex Pirate Bay.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @anotherday____ @hugohanoi and
(Never said dispersion is ineffective—i.e. censorship resistant—I am saying that dispersion logics contradict the scale logic on which your overarching claim is made. If we take dispersion as positive then something in your argument is absurd logically speaking).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @anotherday____ @hugohanoi and
((Sorry irresistant—too many negations.))
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Obviously degree of decentralization matters, i.e., dispersion over 200 countries is better than 2. But you're missing the point. Point is PoW has this defensive option *at all*, due to physical HW on the ground. Disperse hardware is the last line of defense if pools are hacked.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @hugohanoi @anotherday____ and
In comparison, PoS validators are merely software & required to have sensitive keys online to sign txs. Validators can be targeted from anywhere remotely. Once keys are stolen & majority control lost (btw the threshold for majority control in PoS is 1/3, not 1/2), you’re screwed.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Hugo Nguyen Retweeted Hugo Nguyen
The other & even bigger issue, is this https://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/1050924130487291904 … PoW: w/ majority control, still needs to spend a ridic amount of money to rewrite history/double-spend. PoS: majority control means doing these things at almost *no cost*. Overall, risks nowhere near comparable.
Hugo Nguyen added,
-
-
It is hard to miss a point that is overstated. Easier the other way around—if dispersion is mission critical design accordingly. I am not arguing the obvious just your reasoning—by implication hw+energy is not alchemy, there are other costs in play. You see this yet you don’t
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.

