Yea... Doesn't take too much to 51% attack 5 GHs...
1 PH tho.... I'm not concerned about Bitcoin mining centralization.
This is why DATUM and nostr:nprofile1qqsq9k04vahllseell55m74n3047y88pzlr0z5yany32st29fapqmgspz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsz9thwden5te0dehhxarj9ehhsarj9ejx2a30qrcyul are the most important projects in Bitcoin. Pools who control the blocks are an enormous liability, although this attack isn’t perfectly straightforward due to the shitcoin incentive.
Discussion
1PH dominated by like 4 pools (pretending to be 6) is a concern. 1PH with individual miners constructing blocks themselves, that doesn’t worry me.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking simple scale will protect a highly vulnerable structure.
There will always be 2-4 large pools. That's the nature of mining incentives. Bigger pool more likely to get reward. Pool too big, reward is too diluted. It's a self regulating system. Real proof of work, not some BS uPOW. I don't forsee pools being a problem or mining centralization being a problem in Bitcoins system.
Again, this is about whether or not pools are building the blocks or not. I didn’t say DATUM would make pools small. Your point is correct, but not relevant.
I wasn't suggesting they would make pools smaller. I generally agree that DATUM and STRATUMV2 are good developments, but what's the incentive for pools to begin using them? That's the key here. Miners, whether in a pool or not, respond to one incentive. Getting paid. I don't see adoption (of pool participants building blocks) happening at a faster pace no matter how much development funding happens. I'm all ears though. We want the same thing.
