7/ (“Ledger security” is used here interchangeably with immutability, or the ledger’s ability to resist changes or tampering.)
-
-
No one disputed that. You're fixating on one tiny part of the security system. A key question is based on the structure, does the system naturally gravitate towards one in which there's a monopoly or oligopoly on hash power, and what incentives does that create?
-
That's a completely orthogonal issue. Whether a PoW ledger was written by a single powerful miner, or by a diverse group of miners: that still does *not* negate the fact that to attack that ledger you need to spend an equivalent amount of hash power that was expensed.
-
Now that doesn't mean that mining centralization is not an issue, and the nature of the PoW hashing algo *might* have some impact on the degree of centralization. But what doesn't have centralization tendencies?
-
If you know some alternatives to PoW mining that doesn't gravitate towards centralization, I'm all ears.
-
And surely, whatever that solution would be, it's *not* PoS.
-
FWIW, Satoshi couldn't foresee how much mining would centralize (the "one CPU, one vote" dream). It's possible that *nothing is safe from centralization forces*.
-
Maybe the best we could do as a community, is to keep the barrier-to-entry as low as possible for mining. And hope that a competitive industry will keep centralization forces in check.
- 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.
