What do you mean they won't propose a 2m block? It has been proposed by a secret agreement. BTC now has a capacity increase identical to 2m.
My argument is that miner centralization poses greater risk to the network than dev centralization.
-
-
In choosing what to defend against, we have to keep that in mind.
-
That doesn't answer my question. Dev and miner centralisation are not at odds with each other at all.
-
I was addressing what
@ErikVoorhees implies above that ppl who defend decentralization doesn't care about dev centralization. -
I'm saying it is a valid concern (at least to me) but it is not as important as keeping mining & network topology decentralized.
-
IMHO mining centralisation is hugely inflated as a problem, because people conflate ownership and control, and forget about incentives
-
That's true. IMHO though there are 2nd order effects to mining centralization. The miners might not directly weaken the network. 1/
-
But by making it prohibitively expensive for anyone to join this supposedly permissionless network, they indirectly do so. 2/
-
Block propagation cost is nihil compared to current efficiency of scale. To worry about the former is suspicious and dishonest IMHO.
- 7 more replies
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.
