polynya
@polynya
PoW (or PoS) are useful for forming a status quo. But beyond that certain point, due to economies/entrenchment of scale & lack of redistributive mechanisms, they will likely only centralize things further. When the time comes, replacing them with a better mechanism will be essential for minimizing centralization.
0 reply
28 recasts
355 reactions
timdaub
@timdaub.eth
I feel like your take that CEXs change anything about the properties of the Bitcoin network is wrong. That argument can be made, like how you can say that gmail is bad for email. But email still forwards a lot of protocol benefits to its users
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Naomi
@naomiii
https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.02368 to this day the best source to reference whenever some BTC maxi comes and tells me that the intial decentralization was a guarantee things would stay that way.
0 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Millie
@millie-x
What are your thoughts on Justin Drake’s views on one shot signatures to solve double spends?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
cryptocellaris.eth 🎩
@cryptocellaris
Do you think there is a better mechanism already that hasn't seen wide adoption or is a superior alternative yet to be invented?
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Kiwidog4
@kiwidog
Any redistribution mechanism would need to be anti-sybil and anti-large actor. A combo we've yet to find a (non-centralized) solution for. Right? I feel like if we solve this, we improve so many areas (Airdrops, governance, wealth concentration and etc). What solutions are you looking at? Zk?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
wehave00001
@wehave00001
kaspa covered this problem.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Blockboy
@0xblockboy.eth
Maybe social proof is the ultimate decentralizing mechanism
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Riyan Adnan
@riyanadnan555
follow me back plz
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
