I wouldn’t be so certain about that.
Bitcoin is valuable because it is decentralized, censorship-resistant, and supply-limited, and that is exactly what BIP110 prioritizes. In today’s Bitcoin ecosystem, mining is dominated by a small number of public mining pools.
Global tensions could increasingly create pressure to comply with censorship requirements, and publicly traded mining companies may find it particularly difficult to resist such pressure.
The security of the Bitcoin network is not determined solely by the amount of computational power securing it. It also depends on how many mining machines are actually available and how widely they are distributed among independent participants. If 100% of the machines were widely and independently distributed, the network would be much more resilient. But if only 70% of the available machines were operating while the remaining 30% were sitting on the market and could potentially be acquired by a single actor, the network would become more vulnerable to attack.
In that sense, a new coin using a different proof-of-work algorithm is not necessarily much less secure simply because it has less total hash power.
There is also the issue of custody in today’s Bitcoin. A very large amount of Bitcoin is held in custodial arrangements without any cryptographic guarantee that all of the underlying Bitcoin actually exists. Rehypothecation could create additional synthetic supply and put downward pressure on the price.
If a competing chain could demonstrate that its transactions cannot be censored, that it has a larger and more decentralized network of independently operated nodes, and that a greater percentage of its coins are held in self-custody, it could potentially lead to more transactions taking place directly on-chain. This would generate higher transaction fees. Higher fee revenue would give network protectors more money to continue doing so and make the network less dependent on publicly traded dept companies.
With all of these factors combined, such a chain would absolutely have a legitimate reason to exist.
In that scenario, it could serve as a kind of escape valve, a credible alternative for users if Bitcoin turns out to be more captured or centralized than it currently appears to be.
npub1ht…9axzv
2026-09-05 20:19:30 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…3k6l
Author Public Key
npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzvPublished at
2026-09-05 20:19:30 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "8613624bd2f44ac699835c8f327b905a5da4640e5a6fc76977b6eb3e01fa6091",
"pubkey": "bac3fb9ab844e643b2339dcad1c97819a964549ca439930c1e77d7bb668f995d",
"created_at": 1788639570,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"20e10c87a9beea9eaca874db8f87095b295dc660c121e5ca217fb22c33030b4f",
"",
"root"
],
[
"p",
"55e343e6589073d312fcab30075e4b4681369b65459eff36a7e2fe4f880acd1b",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"client",
"Primal iOS"
]
],
"content": "I wouldn’t be so certain about that.\n\nBitcoin is valuable because it is decentralized, censorship-resistant, and supply-limited, and that is exactly what BIP110 prioritizes. In today’s Bitcoin ecosystem, mining is dominated by a small number of public mining pools.\n\nGlobal tensions could increasingly create pressure to comply with censorship requirements, and publicly traded mining companies may find it particularly difficult to resist such pressure.\n\nThe security of the Bitcoin network is not determined solely by the amount of computational power securing it. It also depends on how many mining machines are actually available and how widely they are distributed among independent participants. If 100% of the machines were widely and independently distributed, the network would be much more resilient. But if only 70% of the available machines were operating while the remaining 30% were sitting on the market and could potentially be acquired by a single actor, the network would become more vulnerable to attack.\n\nIn that sense, a new coin using a different proof-of-work algorithm is not necessarily much less secure simply because it has less total hash power.\n\nThere is also the issue of custody in today’s Bitcoin. A very large amount of Bitcoin is held in custodial arrangements without any cryptographic guarantee that all of the underlying Bitcoin actually exists. Rehypothecation could create additional synthetic supply and put downward pressure on the price.\n\nIf a competing chain could demonstrate that its transactions cannot be censored, that it has a larger and more decentralized network of independently operated nodes, and that a greater percentage of its coins are held in self-custody, it could potentially lead to more transactions taking place directly on-chain. This would generate higher transaction fees. Higher fee revenue would give network protectors more money to continue doing so and make the network less dependent on publicly traded dept companies.\n\nWith all of these factors combined, such a chain would absolutely have a legitimate reason to exist.\n\nIn that scenario, it could serve as a kind of escape valve, a credible alternative for users if Bitcoin turns out to be more captured or centralized than it currently appears to be. ",
"sig": "79a2b4b0f524ff445a3973efdf95d35a5020fd602ffa7a48da9a295adcf0437d8aa323a47d0b8b729b61fc32c102a3609bb8a1b6412abb503a8fe4b56dd92785"
}