3 ms·
> but doesn't seem to appreciate the extent to which this re-centralizes the network The difference is that anyone or any group of people can challenge that ce
by Ferret7446 3y ago
> but doesn't seem to appreciate the extent to which this re-centralizes the network
The difference is that anyone or any group of people can challenge that centralization at any time, and the centralization is never monopolistic (e.g., you cannot completely reject transactions even if you control most of the miners). You'd have to control near 100% of the miners and somehow prevent everyone from booting up a new miner forever.
- hiq 3y ago> the centralization is never monopolistic (e.g., you cannot completely reject transactions even if you control most of the miners) Why not? If you control 51%+ of the mining power, you can decide not to accept any mined block that would contain a banned transaction, and ignore it in your own blocks. Your fork would just be that for a while, but since you have more mining power, you'd catch up and end up with the longest chain eventually. Over time, the other miners would have to follow your rules if they still want to be able to mine profitably, so they wouldn't even try to mine such a banned transaction.