Depends on if you see the use case of censorship resitant payment as something we should allow or not (such as paying the Ayatollah to go through the strait).
It's far less studied and didn't exist (to any usable degree) at the time it was made. And it's extremely different, organizationally, so it's a difficult migration to pull off. And it has different incentives. And most miners have a lot of costs (e.g. hardware) that won't be recoverable if it's changed, so there's a fairly strong incentive to not change it.
Ethereum uses proof of stake now though (since 2022). Which happened in part because Ethereum is effectively centralized, or at least significantly more-so than Bitcoin.
I'm not an expert on this, but maybe it is easier to pressure the verifiers to not verify sanctioned entities? Seems to be already happening with Ethereum US nodes maintaining OFAC lists. Maybe one can also pressure them to verify alternative blocks without the transactions, then they won't be possible.
Other than that, it is probably tradition at this point, like with Gold.
I'll throw "proof-of-useful-work" into the ring. Reallocating at least a portion of BTCs verification onto existing energy costs could go a long way.
Not suggesting it would be easy or that the entire network would be able to agree on what tasks to use, just that it's a theoretical option.
Sounds like you've already made up your mind?
I can't because I think it is. It's also doing its part in destroying the planet as a consequence.
Depends on if you see the use case of censorship resitant payment as something we should allow or not (such as paying the Ayatollah to go through the strait).
I for one don't.
But even of you do see the use, why not proof of stake rather than proof of work?
It's far less studied and didn't exist (to any usable degree) at the time it was made. And it's extremely different, organizationally, so it's a difficult migration to pull off. And it has different incentives. And most miners have a lot of costs (e.g. hardware) that won't be recoverable if it's changed, so there's a fairly strong incentive to not change it.
Ethereum uses proof of stake now though (since 2022). Which happened in part because Ethereum is effectively centralized, or at least significantly more-so than Bitcoin.
I'm not an expert on this, but maybe it is easier to pressure the verifiers to not verify sanctioned entities? Seems to be already happening with Ethereum US nodes maintaining OFAC lists. Maybe one can also pressure them to verify alternative blocks without the transactions, then they won't be possible.
Other than that, it is probably tradition at this point, like with Gold.
I'll throw "proof-of-useful-work" into the ring. Reallocating at least a portion of BTCs verification onto existing energy costs could go a long way. Not suggesting it would be easy or that the entire network would be able to agree on what tasks to use, just that it's a theoretical option.
1 reply →