A random Reddit comment discussing the differences between security and decentralization caught my attention among the many articles, comments, and documentations I've recently read about the decentralization of blockchain networks.
ChatGPT makes mention to the widely publicized 51% attack percentage influence, while several publications discussing the Nakamoto Coefficient set the threshold at 33.33%.
I think it differs depending on the blockchain. 33.33% may be significant for a number of proof-of-stake blockchains, but it is not significant for networks like as Bitcoin, which is why the 51% attack is frequently discussed.
Nevertheless, if you examine the current ecosystem, you will see that the majority of blockchains are susceptible to a collective attack using the Nakamoto Coefficient. For example, it is widely known that Ethereum may be compromised with just two stake pools.
source
Despite evidence to the contrary, Bitcoin Maxis attempts to promote the notion that Bitcoin is decentralized. This demonstrates that B-maxis are either not very intelligent or just believe that everyone who reads their trash is stupid.
It's easy to determine how centralized it is by looking at mining pools that track sources like this. As of this writing, the top 3 miners control over 51% of the network's mining power, and Foundry USA owns over 34.59% of the hashrate.
This implies that the top three could theoretically attack the network with ease if they so desired. What is preventing them, then?At the moment, the only danger posed by the concentration of Bitcoin's hash power on the network is censorship; other from that, there is no risk to the chain because an attempt at an exploit would be too costly and stupid.
Since it is currently the most costly to attack, Bitcoin is the most secure blockchain. Since mining power isn't distributed enough to be considered completely decentralized by definition, decentralization has nothing to do with it.