Nostr Web Client

I'm with Matt Corallo on the "centralization is very concerning" issue but the nuclear option isn't going to fix anything at all neither.

Has anybody tried to shed light on to why pools are centralized? I read claims about pay-per-share needing a deep balance sheet and stuff but I've been theorizing about this since ten years now that an attacker wouldn't need to buy and operate 51% of all mining equipment. They only need to run a pool that pays out more than the competition. How expensive is that? Let the pool operate at a loss and you kill all competing pools.

I think this is how nation state adoption of Bitcoin mining looks like. You don't need to build huge mining farms to control the hash rate. You only need to recruit big mining farms to mine what you want to get mined.

Able Kirby 1y ago 💬 1

Yes, telling people what to do is a doomed approch, and I'm surprised that Matt would make that error. Bitcoin is underpinned by game theory, rather than coercion.

We need a clear explanation of exactly why this breaks the game (if it indeed does) and then understand how to make the game more secure without breaking it further. The explanation needs to include a full world view on a long timescale, with acts and reactions, beyond just one agent in one state considers a control play.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Leo Wandersleb 1y ago

I think he is making noise. The nuclear option for example is so ridiculous that it only makes sense if it's meant to scare people into action.

That said, game theory also has to consider calls to action as a tool. The economic incentives are such that people will defend the network but somebody will have to tell them that danger is lurking right now and defense is needed now.