The worst that development centralization can do is protocol stagnation. Devs can't force users to run changes they don't want.
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.
-
It's not just propagation time. Its vulnerability to partitioning/routing/state-sanctioned attacks etc.
-
What on earth does that have to do with blocksize?
-
Increased block size raises the cost of running full nodes, pricing people out. Fewer full nodes == more vulnerable network.
- 4 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.
