4 ms·
If we want it to be secure anyway... Oh God, I'm _really_ hoping you're being sarcastic. You've read about the dozens on dozens of compromised exchanges? You
by seagreen 10y ago
If we want it to be secure anyway...
Oh God, I'm _really_ hoping you're being sarcastic.
You've read about the dozens on dozens of compromised exchanges?
You heard about the DAO hack?
You realize that the majority of bitcoin is mined by like a dozen people in China?
Maybe someday we'll get our act together, but right now blockchains are a recipe for FUD and centralization.
(I say this as someone who thinks bitcoin is cool. For instance, the traditional financial system makes it unnecessarily hard to send money overseas, a need bitcoin can fill well. But secure? No.)
- cloudjacker 10y agotolerable growing pains all of those things improve the resilience of the implementations exactly as the original white paper suggested
- CoryG89 10y agoI'm not sure how the centralization improves the resilience of the implementations. Mining pool centralization is definitely a big downside for security on the blockchain. A lot of research is being done in cryptocurrencies looking for ways to discourage this type of centralization.
- cloudjacker 10y agocentralization doesn't, that wasn't a claim I was making or considering mining pool centralization has ebbs and flows. I'm not concerned about bitcoin's TODAY for example, but maybe tomorrow and at times in the past. There are a lot of blockchains people don't put under much scrutiny, where it turns out there is massive centralization. But this isn't an inherent problem, Satoshi was 100% of Bitcoin's network for a long time.