馃搮 Original date posted:2015-08-04
馃摑 Original message:On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Hector Chu <hectorchu at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 August 2015 at 14:13, Jorge Tim贸n <jtimon at jtimon.cc> wrote:
>>
>> 2) It doesn't matter who is to blame about the current centralization:
>> the fact remains that the blocksize maximum is the only** consensus
>> rule to limit mining centralization.
>
>
> Repeating a claim ad-nauseum doesn't make it necessarily true. A block size
> limit won't prevent miners in the future from buying each other out.
But reading it 10 times may help you understand the claim, you will
never find out until you try.
"Miners buying each other out" is not the only way in which mining
centralization can get even worse.
A Blocksize limit may not be able to prevent such a scenario, but it's
still the only consensus tool to limit mining centralization.
If you want to prove that claim wrong you need to find a
counter-example of another consensus rule that somehow limits mining
centralization.
You could also prove that this rule doesn't help with mining
centralization at all. But that's much more difficult and if you just
claim it (and consequently advocate for the complete removal of the
consensus rule) we will have already advanced a lot.
But you denying that the limits serves limiting mining centralization
and at the same time advocating for keeping a limit at all doesn't
seem very consistent.
If you don't want that rule to limit mining centralization pressures,
what do you want it for?
Jorge Tim贸n [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fx鈥l2d8
2023-06-07 15:44:47
in reply to nevent1q鈥8ky
Author Public Key
npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8Seen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 15:44:47Event JSON
{
"id": "c90fc202e9acc25570a4f100dee68800fd504deedbc89bde48ddc672bb85c5f7",
"pubkey": "498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84",
"created_at": 1686152687,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a4d71ef2ddda9c77f8ea8d885165eb505edf2c401c1a75726495bef91bd64d3b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"9c40b9dc5fa6de1626ca26cdf889f75778ad3d0da9209ba613f10259023768f6",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"e714966547dd91a3f320e4323e88e8ce7c046abe8c7e328d48ae1e68503b04f9"
]
],
"content": "馃搮 Original date posted:2015-08-04\n馃摑 Original message:On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Hector Chu \u003chectorchu at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On 4 August 2015 at 14:13, Jorge Tim贸n \u003cjtimon at jtimon.cc\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e 2) It doesn't matter who is to blame about the current centralization:\n\u003e\u003e the fact remains that the blocksize maximum is the only** consensus\n\u003e\u003e rule to limit mining centralization.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Repeating a claim ad-nauseum doesn't make it necessarily true. A block size\n\u003e limit won't prevent miners in the future from buying each other out.\n\nBut reading it 10 times may help you understand the claim, you will\nnever find out until you try.\n\"Miners buying each other out\" is not the only way in which mining\ncentralization can get even worse.\nA Blocksize limit may not be able to prevent such a scenario, but it's\nstill the only consensus tool to limit mining centralization.\nIf you want to prove that claim wrong you need to find a\ncounter-example of another consensus rule that somehow limits mining\ncentralization.\nYou could also prove that this rule doesn't help with mining\ncentralization at all. But that's much more difficult and if you just\nclaim it (and consequently advocate for the complete removal of the\nconsensus rule) we will have already advanced a lot.\nBut you denying that the limits serves limiting mining centralization\nand at the same time advocating for keeping a limit at all doesn't\nseem very consistent.\nIf you don't want that rule to limit mining centralization pressures,\nwhat do you want it for?",
"sig": "59efdfaed3bd447f9f832db609825cf164ea8b648353cdd8927f0ca411869e90a3d9407a8bb1b3c3cfa94748583ba672835f94fb976015f9067ca0b78ea4d5eb"
}