Next scheduled rescrape ... in 5 days
Version 1
Last scraped
Scraped on 12/09/2025, 18:43:44 UTC
Not necessarily. The network can continue exactly like this, without growing, and will remain profitable and secure.
Well, you can have a
- 2 trillion worth of coins chain protected by a gear that needs 50 million a day to be overpowered
- a 10 trillion worth of coins that is protected by gear needing 60 million a day to be overpowered
Which one feels safer?
I said it many times, you can guard an ice cream shop with a guy, you can guard a Walmart with two armed bodyguards, but I doubt guarding the White House with 3 guys is a good idea.
They are different things!
The network is secure due to the decentralization of the hash, not its quantity. Of course, if it's cheap to buy a lot of hash, that complicates things, but assembling hash isn't cheap.
In other words, having 5PH is as secure as having 1PH. It's not secure for someone to have +50% of the network's hashrate.
What makes it more insecure is knowing that only 3 mining pools concentrate +50% of the hash
This idea that more hashing is needed to secure the network is an exaggeration and just a tool to feed hardware manufacturers.
Original archived Re: [Sep 2025]Mempool empty, Consolidate your small inputs @0.24 sat/vbyte
Scraped on 12/09/2025, 18:38:24 UTC
Not necessarily. The network can continue exactly like this, without growing, and will remain profitable and secure.
Well, you can have a
- 2 trillion worth of coins chain protected by a gear that needs 50 million a day to be overpowered
- a 10 trillion worth of coins that is protected by gear needing 60 million a day to be overpowered
Which one feels safer?
I said it many times, you can guard an ice cream shop with a guy, you can guard a Walmart with two armed bodyguards, but I doubt guarding the White House with 3 guys is a good idea.
They are different things!
The network is secure due to the decentralization of the hash, not its quantity. Of course, if it's cheap to buy a lot of hash, that complicates things, but assembling hash isn't cheap.
In other words, having 5PH is as secure as having 1PH. It's not secure for someone to have +50% of the network's hashrate.
What makes it more insecure is knowing that only 3 mining pools concentrate +50% of the hash, than the network will continue for the next 10 years with the same hash as it currently has. Considering that the three largest pools gather +50% of hash, the largest pool being private and no one knows how many individual miners it has, and knowing that the second largest belongs to the largest ASIC manufacturer, I see this as more dangerous.
This idea that more hashing is needed to secure the network is an exaggeration and just a tool to feed hardware manufacturers.