pay-to-play exclusionism

I’m getting lazy and have developed a tendency to rely on others’ write-ups of the insights:

“The final challenge which many traditional blockchains face is that due to their public nature, many will simply not be able to work without an anti-spam mechanism of some sort. The anti-spam mechanism used by most blockchains is that data which is to be stored in the blockchain must be accompanied by some payment or deposit of the blockchain’s built-in token. This creates a “pay-to-play” atmosphere which suits those individual nodes who possess a significant amount of the tokens well, but may not suit those individuals who do not possess the tokens. Indeed, this is an insurmountable problem for many blockchains and outside of “wealthier” users subsidizing others so that they might benefit from the utility of whatever function that blockchain is meant to provide, there is no answer.”

A couple of observations:

i) “may not suit” is unnecessarily timid, “will not suit” is much more like it

ii) note and inwardly digest: “insurmountable problem … no answer



BACK: News

You might also enjoy (View all posts)