Lol WEF, you don't need to be an expert to understand the concept of proof of stake. These people are acting like it's a new idea. Good luck convincing the decentralised community to change it though. Not to mention any unauthorised changes to the code would be rectified immediately due to it's decentralised nature, or would instantly tank the value so everyone has an incentive not to fuck with it.
Not to mention any unauthorised changes to the code would be rectified immediately due to it's decentralised nature, or would instantly tank the value so everyone has an incentive not to fuck with it.
The miners dictate which fork will be the winning one. See Bitcoin "core" vs "cash", Bcash did have a potentially good solution to scaling, miners disagree because they would get paid less. The result, a fork where a few users went over to Bcash and most stayed with core where the miners are.
Not only does miners provide security in a proof of work network, but if you're on a fork using the same algorithm as the original, that's a pretty big attack vector. One large miner could easily launch a 51% attack on Bcash due to it's low hashrate compared to core.
If WEF where to create their own version of Bitcoin it would be the same thing, sure they could easily do that, but no miner would support it and no sane user would trust WEF who's "solution" is most likely to just centralize it all and put themselves in charge, "for the environment" of course. 🤡
It is a simple matter of regulation with a choice: a or b. Self interest prevails and you will see a change. Bitcoin is already pack and parcel of the system. You only have to compare certain currencies and commodities and you will see the movement.
The moment futures were setup for bitcoin was the end of bitcoin as was intended. The " market' s price discovery" - mechanism was hijacked and manipulated just as with Gold and Silver.
Lol WEF, you don't need to be an expert to understand the concept of proof of stake. These people are acting like it's a new idea. Good luck convincing the decentralised community to change it though. Not to mention any unauthorised changes to the code would be rectified immediately due to it's decentralised nature, or would instantly tank the value so everyone has an incentive not to fuck with it.
Exactly...👌
The miners dictate which fork will be the winning one. See Bitcoin "core" vs "cash", Bcash did have a potentially good solution to scaling, miners disagree because they would get paid less. The result, a fork where a few users went over to Bcash and most stayed with core where the miners are.
Not only does miners provide security in a proof of work network, but if you're on a fork using the same algorithm as the original, that's a pretty big attack vector. One large miner could easily launch a 51% attack on Bcash due to it's low hashrate compared to core.
If WEF where to create their own version of Bitcoin it would be the same thing, sure they could easily do that, but no miner would support it and no sane user would trust WEF who's "solution" is most likely to just centralize it all and put themselves in charge, "for the environment" of course. 🤡
That can easily be done.
It is a simple matter of regulation with a choice: a or b. Self interest prevails and you will see a change. Bitcoin is already pack and parcel of the system. You only have to compare certain currencies and commodities and you will see the movement.
The moment futures were setup for bitcoin was the end of bitcoin as was intended. The " market' s price discovery" - mechanism was hijacked and manipulated just as with Gold and Silver.