3 ms·
Its way more fundamental flaw. Production of anything is always more efficient if controlled my a single entity. "Producing" hashes are no exceptions. If "produ
by noxer 6y ago
Its way more fundamental flaw. Production of anything is always more efficient if controlled my a single entity. "Producing" hashes are no exceptions. If "producing" X hashes per second cost Y then "producing" Xk hashes per second wont cost Yk. it costs less because of optimizations.
- aeternum 6y agoYes, but a single entity owning all the hashrate would also significantly decrease the value of Bitcoin, which acts as a balance.
- noxer 6y agoReality shows otherwise. We don't need one entity to control all the hashrate. One controlling more than 50% is already fatal. Depending on what definition you use we already have that. China as a jurisdiction can be considered one entity. The price may or may not calculate that risk in but no matter how much it would fall it does not turn back time. Remember hashes per second is cheaper to produce when you produce more. That doesn't change if the price drops. The small hash producers are first to become unprofitable and have the smallest reserve's + as soon as they go bankrupt the others are more likely to become profitable regardless of price simply because there is now less competition. If one of the large player would go bankrupt the market would be flooded with cheap ASICs most likely to be bought up by the remaining large players.
- jacobush 6y agoIf the owner (China) values something else higher, not so much.