| ▲ | idiotsecant 4 days ago |
| That's not at all relevant to parent post's point. BTC mining is famously centralized, and continues to get more so. It is inevitable that a manufacturer of BTC asics with access to cheap power will become large enough to control 51% of the hash. It's inevitable. It's bad system design - it makes being able to manufacture your own custom silicon table stakes to run a financial system for some reason. BTC will have to move to a proof of stake design to survive. It's unavoidable. |
|
| ▲ | ifwinterco 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| That is debatable, but also besides anything else, changing to PoS means changing the tokenomics (some tail emission for staking rewards, no 21m hard cap), which means it's incredibly unlikely to happen |
| |
| ▲ | ChadNauseam 4 days ago | parent [-] | | why would staking rewards be any more necessary than mining rewards? | | |
| ▲ | ifwinterco 4 days ago | parent [-] | | In the end state (after ~2140), mining rewards just come from TX fees. But true, it is possible you could just redistribute TX fees to stakers. Post-merge ethereum is designed so that the gas fees and the staking rewards roughly cancel out on balance (so overall inflation is around zero), but they are decoupled so even if nobody is using the network you still get a staking yield | | |
| ▲ | eurleif 4 days ago | parent [-] | | >so overall inflation is around zero Pedantic point: monetary inflation is around zero, not necessarily price inflation (which is what people typically mean when they just say "inflation"). | | |
| ▲ | ifwinterco 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes sorry, important clarification. In theory if the entire world was on an ethereum standard with a steady state population, price inflation would also average out to zero |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | LikesPwsh 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| BTC can't move to proof of stake because religious zealots would keep their money in the old fork. It's doomed in general, see the cash fork. |
| |
|
| ▲ | robocat 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > It is inevitable that a manufacturer of BTC asics with access to cheap power will become large enough to control 51% of the hash The ASIC manufacturer would also need a backdoor. ASIC manufacturers don't control mining. Large miners are unlikely to allow backdoors into their mining network. |
| |
| ▲ | fruitworks 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | ASIC miners often do control mining. They often mine with chips before they drop them in the public market | |
| ▲ | passivegains 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think they mean the manufacturer would just keep most of the stock for themselves. Reminds me of that famous Scarface quote: "You should get high on your own supply, it's a great idea that won't end horribly." | |
| ▲ | idiotsecant 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | >ASIC manufacturers don't control mining. I dont think you understand the BTC mining ecosystem |
|
