They argue that the owners of ASICs are unlikely to attack the network because they’d quickly make the ASICs obsolete by changing the PoW algorithm and destroy their massive investment as the ASICs would be totally worthless.
However if they use an ASIC resistant PoW, an attacker would still have valuable generalized computing hardware even if they attacked the network.
So basically, if you centralize Bitcoin in the hands of a few wealthy people, it makes it more resistant to attack.
Probably true but also spits in the face of the whole core concept of the entire thing.
i had not heard that argument before. sounds like a “not a bug it’s a feature” kind of motivated reasoning.
the whole point was to be decentralised, otherwise is just like fiat currency. and anyway decentralisation would be a stronger protection against the 51% attack.
They argue that the owners of ASICs are unlikely to attack the network because they’d quickly make the ASICs obsolete by changing the PoW algorithm and destroy their massive investment as the ASICs would be totally worthless.
However if they use an ASIC resistant PoW, an attacker would still have valuable generalized computing hardware even if they attacked the network.
So basically, if you centralize Bitcoin in the hands of a few wealthy people, it makes it more resistant to attack.
Probably true but also spits in the face of the whole core concept of the entire thing.
i had not heard that argument before. sounds like a “not a bug it’s a feature” kind of motivated reasoning.
the whole point was to be decentralised, otherwise is just like fiat currency. and anyway decentralisation would be a stronger protection against the 51% attack.