You can improve the hardware that performs the hashing function itself. But there’s no getting around the fact that to rewrite history you have to spend an equivalent amount of hash operations. 100% efficiency.
-
-
Replying to @hugohanoi @lsukernik
1/ You're stating an assumption as though it's fact. Try this thought experiment: would it be possible to devise a PoW cryptocurrency that is *less* efficient than Bitcoin? Consider how the energy -> security dynamic changes based on miner centralization,
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @AriDavidPaul @lsukernik
Hugo Nguyen Retweeted Hugo Nguyen
It's not an assumption, it's math.https://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/952289179387310080 …
Hugo Nguyen added,
Hugo Nguyen @hugohanoiReplying to @david_koops @TuurDemeesterLike I said, the mining hardware can be inefficient, and there’s room for improvement there (faster, generate less heat etc.). But the hashing operations themselves are 100% efficient for the purpose of protecting the ledger from being rewritten. One hash in, one hash out.2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Over a large distribution, the amount of hash power required to rewrite X blocks is *exactly the same as what was required to mine those X blocks in the first place*. That's a fact and what I meant by PoW having 100% efficiency in terms of protecting the ledger against rewrite.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @lsukernik
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @AriDavidPaul @lsukernik
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.
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
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?
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
If you know some alternatives to PoW mining that doesn't gravitate towards centralization, I'm all ears.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
And surely, whatever that solution would be, it's *not* PoS.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
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*.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
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.
-
-
Centralization is a result of lack of competition. This is primarily a relic of legacy fiat incentive structures. Mining will decentralize in time, once we reach market maturity (years away)
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.
