Most Johnly of HenriesIt's still sort of crazy to me that these obvious flaws in blockchains' core principles and governing entities exist, but smart people keep investing in them anyway. I guess they truly lack any sort of faith in regular governments. There's a need for "digital government journalists", who are neither embedded in old-world politics (like EFF & others) nor untrustworthy orgs who are biased by positions they hold with cryptocurrencies (like Coindesk, or other "bitcoin news").
Nate Cull (.social)@johnhenry Biggest problem I have with the fundamentals of blockchain is that its core premise - that digital proof-of-work will force decentralisation of processing - has been proved flat wrong. Processing has centralised with those who have the cheapest power (ie three companies in China). That core algorithm failure means the game is over. Time to go back to the white-paper stage and rethink.
@johnhenry Eg even Curtis Yarvin in that linked article admits this core failure:
"Ironically, mining power in Bitcoin is quite centralized -- a small number of Chinese mining-pool managers, who have every opportunity to collude, could roll back anything. But they never have and they probably never will.
Even if a single pool controlled 51% of Bitcoin mining power, they'd have no incentive to break the rules -- quite the converse."
So if math isn't protecting the db, just use an ordinary one.