3 ms·

Deliberately making bitcoin worse would incentivize users to switch to alternatives like Libra or Ethereum (which claims to be moving to proof-of-stake).

• shawnz 6y ago
  Making Bitcoin deliberately worse would also hinder the development of those future improvements in efficiency, perhaps actually leading to proof-of-work systems being around for even longer.
  • jonhendry18 6y ago
    Er, no it wouldn't? You don't need Bitcoin around to do that.
    • shawnz 6y ago
      I didn't say you need it, but it incentivized the development of those more efficient cryptocurrency technologies by providing a decentralized store of value in which the market could build trust in the interim period where proof-of-stake technologies were still being developed. What I am saying is that perhaps proof-of-work coins actually bootstrapped proof-of-stake technologies, thus leading to more rapid development of cryptocurrency technology in general.
      • jonhendry18 6y ago
        Sure, but in that respect Bitcoin has been redundant for years.
        • shawnz 6y ago
          You may say that, but given that proof-of-stake coins should be able to easily outcompete proof-of-work coins on a purely technical basis, and yet they have not achieved that success yet in practice (although they are growing rapidly), it seems the overall market still disagrees.