Those miners don't control all that hash. If any one one of them attempts a 51% attack the actual hashers can easily direct their hashpower elsewhere.
Either you don't understand this and are daft, or you do understand this and are intentionally speaking in bad faith. In either case I'm done responding to you.
Login to reply
Replies (5)
You dont have any decentralized pool, so where you will direct your hashrate to? Can you explain to me?
You are not seeing the bigger picture, look whats above all of them..
You truly are daft.
Ok, so if any one of the pools from the largest to the smallest attempts a 51% attack the hashers who direct their hashrate to a pool that is not acting beligerent can very easily direct it to a mining pool that is not acting beligerently. Mining, and mining pools are the very definition of a fluid situation. What you are saying is like saying the ocean is not decentralized because there are only 7 seas.
Ok, so if any one of the pools from the largest to the smallest attempts a 51% attack the hashers who direct their hashrate to a pool that is not acting beligerent can very easily direct it to a mining pool that is not acting beligerently. Mining, and mining pools are the very definition of a fluid situation. What you are saying is like saying the ocean is not decentralized because there are only 7 seas.As above so below 

This works in theory, but reality doesn’t back it up. Case in point: miners not redirecting hashrate despite clear forensic evidence that most of the smaller pools in the top 10 are just AntPool proxies - meaning a handful of people control what goes into 70% of mined blocks. On top of that, we’ve seen miners stick with pools even when those operators are actively attacking Bitcoin (spamming the chain and bloating the UTXO set). And if that wasn’t enough, we’ve got yet another example: miners refusing to switch pools even when they could earn 10–20% more in rewards, like with Ocean. In short, theory tells us one thing, but the actual behavior of miners (or should I say hashers?) keeps proving the opposite.
View quoted note →