3 ms·

>the larger block size does mean it has higher chance of being centralized. Centralization already happened with BTC/BTC-CASH. ASICs are operated at scale i

>the larger block size does mean it has higher chance of being centralized. Centralization already happened with BTC/BTC-CASH. ASICs are operated at scale in data centers with access to cheap electricity. Hard drives are much simpler to acquire and maintain versus the already niche ASIC market and mining pools. Also it's worth noting the BTC community used to praise microtransactions and digital cash payments for market goods, but now that the utility is clogged and combersome the goal posts have been shifted from "this software enables payments" to "this software shouldn't be used for payments except in rare cases".

cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
> Centralization already happened with BTC/BTC-CASH. As much as I agree with you on how it's become "more" centralized, this is not a binary thing. So my answer to this is NO, centralization has not "already happened". Yes, it may be getting more and more centralized, but it's not some switch you can flip on and off. This type of absolute expression was exactly what I was ranting about. Note that I agree with most of what you said. I'm just not a fan of these statements of absolutism.