I try to rephrase: How does the new chain / implementation prevent that we eventually end up with the same miner centralization? And if it has happened, is the solution just another hard fork? How was...
rn there's no other solution.
we can hardfork again, if big pools won't listen. and this is what we do as a chain now, historically. so idea is pool on this chain would listen. and as a network we would ignore the pools.
hope is DATUM will keep it decentralized in the long term. since we are early enough, hope was DATUM pools would be the main pools. tho AlphaPool (probably f2) kinda fucking it up rn. so idk, we will see.
if it wont work we can then think of other ways. not rn.
we have 300KB block size limit, more decentralization easier to run a node. we have fixed block withholding issue as well. we fixed nonces. our blocks header is better too rigs/hashers only see the hash. makes it easier. etc.
many benefits. but mining centralization into pools is a hard issue yes.
we can hardfork again, if big pools won't listen. and this is what we do as a chain now, historically. so idea is pool on this chain would listen. and as a network we would ignore the pools.
hope is DATUM will keep it decentralized in the long term. since we are early enough, hope was DATUM pools would be the main pools. tho AlphaPool (probably f2) kinda fucking it up rn. so idk, we will see.
if it wont work we can then think of other ways. not rn.
we have 300KB block size limit, more decentralization easier to run a node. we have fixed block withholding issue as well. we fixed nonces. our blocks header is better too rigs/hashers only see the hash. makes it easier. etc.
many benefits. but mining centralization into pools is a hard issue yes.
