💙 Are you a DApp? We're helping DApps reach out to more users with our promotion service. Contact us now!
View all posts

Dan Larimer Tweets On Bitcoin Brings Discussion on EOS


With BTC hitting new highs, Block.one CTO and EOS founder Daniel Larimer started tweeting about Bitcoin. However, these tweets sparked a community discussion, and many feel that Dan should be more focused on EOS. He replied that he is dedicated on the technology. What else did people discussed? Let's take a look!

How would bitcoin be better or worse if mining could be replaced with proof of burning bitcoin. The difficulty adjustment would be a change in the minimum price to produce. No block rewards. Best chain being the one with most burnt?


After the development was sent out, a community member, Dizzle, said.

Is it possible that you can even try and make the eos token more valuable, is that even on the docket ?

BM replied with the following.

I build tech, but clearly value is not derived from technology alone but from the community that chooses to use the tech.


Another community member, Todor Karaivanov, stated.

It would increase centralization long-term because it would be harder to create new competitive advantage strategies.

Daniel Larimer replies.

Fascinating. I would have predicted it would increase decentralization by eliminating economy of scale and technological barriers to entry while preventing censorship.


ZaK states.

Interesting, but I'm afraid it creates a significant deflationary effect. It is a fundamentally unequal structure creating strong instabilities. Perhaps the best choice is supply elastic that tolerates its inflation and deflation?

Daniel Larimer replies.

Bitcoin is strongly deflationary. It is why everyone buys it.


Michael Fletcher states.

I bet would spawn burning pools, and each transaction would attach a burnable fee declared by the pool, in line with market rates. A race to the top, with a potential attack vector of entities pumping the burn rate, which might be hard to normalise once increased.

Daniel Larimer replies.

That would require massive flow of capital to sustain and would be to the benefit of every hodler


Raúl Sánchez stated.

It would turn miners into high-frequency traders.

Pros: Adds a lot of liquidity to the system. Bullish.

Cons: Low latency would be the new low electricity cost, concentrating mining in exchange providers. Similar to POS.

Ready for DPoB 😁

Daniel Larimer replies.

A block producer would still have to wait for transactions to earn income from production. So it is a race to collect fee paying transactions not to produce a block.

Raúl Sánchez remarked.

I think the competitive advantage would be more significant on the sourcing of cheap BTC to burn, given mining rewards.

Daniel Larimer replies.

Interesting theory. Not sure it makes sense given fungible tokens.



How do miners get paid?

Daniel Larimer replies.

By people who want to transact.


Alireza Zamani stated.

Bitcoin is best the way it is. You should think about fixing up EOS. The biggest scam coin in history.

Daniel Larimer replies.

What would you do ?

Jerry Fanelli stated.

So you confirm that EOS needs to be fixed?

Daniel Larimer replies.

No. I’m asking for clarification on what is technically broken?


Branden Espinoza stated.

If it were to cause a decrease in hash rate it would upend one of the biggest promises of BTC mining: CONSUMPTION OF EXCESS CAPACITY. Bitcoin, as is, provides a mechanism to make renewable production economic at scale. Drop the energy demand and excess capacity is wasted.

Daniel Larimer replies.

That’s called the Broken window Fallacy


Todor Karaivanov states.

Who gets to build the next block? The highest bidder? Weighted random from bidders?

Daniel Larimer replies.

Highest bidder.


Cryptosaints stated.

Dan , I still do not see 4 billions dollars

Daniel Larimer replies.

Not in my control. I just build tech.


From the above Twitter discussion, we find that Daniel Larimer is still only concerned with the technical aspects of the blockchain. He said he has no control over the use of the EOS ICO funds, and his main responsibility is still to provide technical support for the EOS mainnet. What do you think about this?


Suggested News