Why doesn't protocol handle whales which is considered as centralism?

Bitcoin block contains a timestamp header.

I acknowledge the protocol rules around playing with the timestamp, including:

  • Validity of block creation that must be no more than 2 hours relative to nodes, and not less than the median timestamp of the latest 11 blocks.

  • Mining difficulty header adjustment every 2 weeks (indirectly, since it’s calculated by block height).

  • Halving mechanism every 4 years (indirectly, since it’s calculated by block height).

But why doesn’t the Bitcoin protocol also include rules for old hodlers who own most Bitcoin to reduce centralization?

Suppose that Bitcoin becomes widely accepted as a payment method. By de facto, the old hodlers who own most Bitcoin technically act as a bank—even though their wealthy is reduced eventually (how long?) and there’s no way to create more Bitcoin supply.

I mean, they indirectly act as a bank because of Bitcoin’s deflationary nature, where every good and service would be offered at the lowest price possible in the future. It’s possible that in a future where every member of society needs at least one sats to buy a house, where one sats becomes extremely hard to get.

If only the Bitcoin protocol handled this issue—where whales with older UTXO must spend their UTXOs so that miners get incentives based on timestamp header. Otherwise, a small percentage of those UTXOs could be deterministically selected by a hash function to be shared into random people's wallets (passive poor wallet) that have less than a certain threshold and greater than a certain threshold—but not to be shared with empty wallets (we can assume empty wallets have no owner).

I think this can be done by using the timestamp header. But changing the protocol requires a hard fork (CMIIW).

There is a challenge, such as a Sybil attack, where whales could create many wallets to avoid the rule until avoiding the criteria as a whale. But remember, this is not practical—higher inputs in a transaction require higher mining fees. Again, at least the whale’s wealth has been forcefully shared with other people (miner).

This rule is only applied to UTXOs above a certain threshold, which objectively targets whales, not mediocrer. So, it’s safe for mediocre people using BTC as fair currency.



from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/SchHxPr
via IFTTT

Popular posts from this blog

Future of Bitcoin encryption and security in a QC era

How will the advancement of quantum computing impact the security of Bitcoin, and what steps are necessary to protect the network from this emerging threat? What role could lattice-based encryption play in safeguarding Bitcoin, and which of the current algorithms are best suited for this purpose? How would the implementation of such encryption technology be integrated into the existing Bitcoin infrastructure, and what challenges might arise during this process? What happens to existing addresses that rely on elliptic curve cryptography? Is there a way to seamlessly transition old addresses to the new system, or would users need to actively transfer their funds to new, more secure addresses? How could such a transition be designed to ensure user security while maintaining trust in the network? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/aZeY2fo via IFTTT
Read more

Possible rollback due to lazy reveal in BRC20?

Let's assume user A committed an inscription with {"op":"deploy", "tick": "test"} at block 100 (without revealing it yet). Then user B commits and reveals the exact same inscription at block 101. Because the indexer isn't aware that A's earlier commit was actually for "test," it recognizes B's "test" token as the official one. From blocks 101 to 199, users freely perform various "test" token transactions (e.g., "mint" , "transfer" ). However, at block 200, user A finally reveals their earlier commit. In that case, will the indexer roll back all "test"-related histories that happened between blocks 101 and 199? If so, can we really trust that all BRC20 tokens recognized by the indexer are "safely" the official ones? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/CsYKVTa via IFTTT
Read more

A way to recover scammed Bitcoin investment

I have learned the hard way that even the most seasoned investors can fall prey to malicious actors. When my Investment was stolen, I felt a sense of betrayal and anger. But then, I discovered this FINANCE TEAM, and their professionalism and unwavering commitment gave me a renewed sense of confidence. From the moment I reached out to this Finance Team, I was impressed by their attention to detail and their deep understanding of the Stock and real estate ecosystem. They listened patiently to my story and carefully analyzed the transaction history, leaving no stone unturned in their investigation. Throughout the recovery process, This Finance Teamkept me informed of their progress, providing me with regular updates and answering my countless questions with patience and understanding. Their unwavering dedication and determination gave me a sense of hope during a time of great uncertainty. To my astonishment, This Finance Team was able to recover a significant portion of my stolen Investme...
Read more