IMHO mining centralisation is hugely inflated as a problem, because people conflate ownership and control, and forget about incentives
-
-
Replying to @seweso
That's true. IMHO though there are 2nd order effects to mining centralization. The miners might not directly weaken the network. 1/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @seweso
But by making it prohibitively expensive for anyone to join this supposedly permissionless network, they indirectly do so. 2/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi
Block propagation cost is nihil compared to current efficiency of scale. To worry about the former is suspicious and dishonest IMHO.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @seweso
It's not just propagation time. Its vulnerability to partitioning/routing/state-sanctioned attacks etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi
What on earth does that have to do with blocksize?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @seweso
Increased block size raises the cost of running full nodes, pricing people out. Fewer full nodes == more vulnerable network.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @seweso
Again, 2MB or even 4Mb blocks might be within reasonable range. But we should approach that we care.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi
The network isn't secured through full nodes. It's secured through incentives. Cost of an attack doesn't change with bigger blocks.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @seweso
No that's wrong. The incentive to run full nodes is the reason Bitcoin exists in the 1st place: individual sovereignty.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Unsophisticated users might not run full nodes now. But when governments threaten BTC its important to have a viable defense against that.
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.
