{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2017-04-08\n📝 Original message:On 8 Apr 2017 5:06 am, \"Jimmy Song via bitcoin-dev\" \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\nPraxeology Guy,\n\nWhy would the actual end users of Bitcoin (the long term and short term\n\u003e owners of bitcoins) who run fully verifying nodes want to change Bitcoin\n\u003e policy in order to make their money more vulnerable to 51% attack?\n\u003e\n\nCertainly, if only one company made use of the extra nonce space, they\nwould have an advantage. But think of it this way, if some newer ASIC\noptimization comes up, would you rather have a non-ASICBoosted hash rate to\ndefend with or an ASICBoosted hash rate? Certainly, the latter, being\nhigher will secure the Bitcoin network better against newer optimizations.\n\n\nWhy?\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170408/9bce75cb/attachment.html\u003e"}