News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]. Parent comment

Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by blunte on Saturday March 11, 2017 @10:49AM (#13845776)
Not to mention the relative consolidation of players in China. Some reports have suggested that well over 51% of mining hash power is consolidated amongst three organizations in China. My last look didn't agree with that number, but still it appears that it may be much easier to control consensus than was intended.

Thus, "anything can happen" if a few key players agree behind closed doors and change the rules.

I think bitcoin is a quite useful transfer platform, but I think it would be foolish to store much of one's assets in BTC.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by Natanael_L on Saturday March 11, 2017 @11:12AM (#13845861)
Note that pools != miners. A pool might set the policy for their blocks, but miners can swap pools whenever they feel like it. Large pools have had individual miners abandon them in masses before.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by blunte on Saturday March 11, 2017 @01:36PM (#13846522)
True. Actually I was referring to the manufacturers of ASICs who are running huge mining operations. I'm not sure if they operate in their own pools or if they distribute their efforts across multiple pools. But they do have a critical mass of hash power.
[ Parent | on HN ]