Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
polynya
@polynya
Today, a majority of BTC is traded and custodied on CEXs. With the advent of ETFs, in the long term BTC will effectively be controlled by a few regulated CEXs. Might as well cancel PoW and go PoA - it'll actually be more decentralized than 2 mining pools & a handful of profit-maxi centralized mining corporations.
9 replies
25 recasts
350 reactions
Quez
@quez.eth
wouldn’t we be back at square one, except with BTC as the currency in use?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Cassie Heart
@cassie
we're kind of getting to that point. I suspect if satoshi were still around, they would agree that pow needs a revamp
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Quez
@quez.eth
i’m stupid, so pardon me if my question is silly but when you say a revamp, do you mean refactoring or like, a rekindling of people’s commitment to it?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Cassie Heart
@cassie
PoW was an attempt at using game theory to distribute security broadly by making many nodes pick the cooperative strategy to avoid the gambler's ruin problem. Mining pools changed the equation by consolidating into a handful of major players. Revamping would be finding an alternative to nakamoto style consensus.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Quez
@quez.eth
sounds like a tricky challenge. idk enough about this to meaningfully contribute towards solving it, but it is fascinating. idk if imposing limits or conditions could be a route forward. i imagine it would cause implications on transaction settlement times. blockchain trilemma in effect lol.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Thomas
@aviationdoctor.eth
I guess it’s easier with PoS where you could enshrine smoothing of execution rewards at the protocol level, so no node benefits from joining a pool/cartel as long as it is provably discharges its consensus duties (not that Ethereum does it either, of course)
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
