Twitter | Search | |
Peter Todd
So that's potentially as much as 75% of the current Bitcoin hashing power in one place. A sane market would be selling right now.
Reply Retweet Like More
Peter Todd 2 Nov 16
Doesn't change it that much - physical centralization is a big worry.
Reply Retweet Like
Peter Todd 2 Nov 16
Suggests my (and others') arguments that we have incentives towards physical decentralization may be wrong.
Reply Retweet Like
Alex Lawn 2 Nov 16
alternatively core could focus on means for mining to be less prone to such centralisation?
Reply Retweet Like
Peter Todd 2 Nov 16
We're doing everything we can; may not be a solvable problem. (alt-PoW's like Equihash appear to be a step back)
Reply Retweet Like
BITMAIN [Not giving away ETH] 3 Nov 16
Replying to @petertoddbtc
We own only a minor share of that planned facility. It is far from completion. Other miners own most of it.
Reply Retweet Like
Peter Todd 3 Nov 16
Replying to @BITMAINtech
. Not worried about you guys attacking BTC; I'm concerned that so much hashing in one place is a big target for the bad guys.
Reply Retweet Like
hitchslappy 2 Nov 16
doesn't understand this could harm confidence in bitcoin (if core value proposition is its decentralised nature)?
Reply Retweet Like
Peter Todd 2 Nov 16
It may be that thinks it can get more reward from centralization - not everyone values decentralization anyway.
Reply Retweet Like
George Kikvadze ⚡ 3 Nov 16
Replying to @petertoddbtc @cnLedger
2/2 dont worry BitFury Box solution will place mini data centers around the world and help decentralize
Reply Retweet Like
George Kikvadze ⚡ 3 Nov 16
Replying to @petertoddbtc @cnLedger
1/2 planning to concentrate so much MW in one place is an unwise business decision. Gvmt can shut it down anytime
Reply Retweet Like