News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Ethereum will use around 99.95% less energy post merge. Parent comment

Re:Ethereum will use around 99.95% less energy post merge by exo762 on Friday May 21, 2021 @07:54AM (#27232888)
> I didn't say that. My point is that miners will decide which chain gets the bigger hashrate and that chain is likely to be adopted as the "real" chain by users, if it's the vast majority of the miners. Furthermore, the prospect that there is no miner support would make users reluctant to upgrade in the first place.

Miners follow money. Users "decide" about prices. Miners are subservient and largely irrelevant. "Don't talk to the staff".

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ethereum will use around 99.95% less energy post merge by incrudible on Friday May 21, 2021 @04:37PM (#27239646)
If miners are largely irrelevant, why is the technologically inferior blockchain called Bitcoin, the superior one called Bitcoin Cash? Why do people pay outrageous fees on the Bitcoin chain and why is a Bitcoin unit worth 20x more than Bitcoin Cash? Why does every proposal without miner majority support fail? Why is Bitcoin called the most secure blockchain?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ethereum will use around 99.95% less energy post merge by exo762 on Thursday May 27, 2021 @11:25AM (#27304211)
You are conflating cause and effect. Security budget of Bitcoin is defined by block reward. Miners just compete to get a larger piece of the pie. Bitcoin price (and thus security budget) are so high because Bitcoin is the default-go-to cryptocurrency. Media talk about two CCs: Bitcoin (in serious tone) and DogeCoin (as a joke). That what explains Bitcoin domination over all other CCs - dumb money.

Unless you are saying that folks who started 'stacking sats' during last two years are a bright bunch and they are capable of reasoning about CCs security.

> Why does every proposal without miner majority support fail?

Watch miners getting owned during Ethereum's transition to PoS.

[ Parent | on HN ]