So dev centralization worst case is protocol stagnation: network intact. Miner centralization worst case, otoh, reduces network security.
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.
-
Again, 2MB or even 4Mb blocks might be within reasonable range. But we should approach that we care.
-
The network isn't secured through full nodes. It's secured through incentives. Cost of an attack doesn't change with bigger blocks.
-
No that's wrong. The incentive to run full nodes is the reason Bitcoin exists in the 1st place: individual sovereignty.
- 1 more reply
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.
