rich1.0npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8https://nostr.ae/npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-08-04 📝 Original message:On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Hector Chu <hectorchu at gmail.com> wrote: > On 4 August 2015 at 14:13, Jorge Timón <jtimon at jtimon.cc> wrote: >> >> 2) It doesn't matter who is to blame about the current centralization: >> the fact remains that the blocksize maximum is the only** consensus >> rule to limit mining centralization. > > > Repeating a claim ad-nauseum doesn't make it necessarily true. A block size > limit won't prevent miners in the future from buying each other out. But reading it 10 times may help you understand the claim, you will never find out until you try. "Miners buying each other out" is not the only way in which mining centralization can get even worse. A Blocksize limit may not be able to prevent such a scenario, but it's still the only consensus tool to limit mining centralization. If you want to prove that claim wrong you need to find a counter-example of another consensus rule that somehow limits mining centralization. You could also prove that this rule doesn't help with mining centralization at all. But that's much more difficult and if you just claim it (and consequently advocate for the complete removal of the consensus rule) we will have already advanced a lot. But you denying that the limits serves limiting mining centralization and at the same time advocating for keeping a limit at all doesn't seem very consistent. If you don't want that rule to limit mining centralization pressures, what do you want it for?