>Any decentralized Blockchain is essentially a democracy with a simple majority, which is actually…
Rune Christensen

Considering the current state of consensus algorithms, until something better comes out I think hash power / proof of work consensus is relatively healthy compared to the alternatives [private chain federated consensus, small m of n, pbft algos like tendermint unless they’re on public chains, etc.].

Even proof of stake is at the root just based on a majority [although depending on the variant it’s not necessarily a simple majority]. As long as economic incentives are aligned properly there isn’t any reason imo to consider nakamoto style consensus to be a bad / “unhealthy” thing. It’s only a bad thing if the chain can be maliciously overridden without negative economic consequences [which given my belief in a modicum of market efficiency, isn’t the case from my perspective]. Is it perfect? Of course not, although I also think it’s the “least bad option” available right now.

Like what you read? Give Joey Krug a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.