I have recently noticed an interesting discussion about Bitcoin decentralization and the proof-of-work mechanism. David Schwartz, who previously served as the Chief Technology Officer at Ripple, presented a completely different perspective from what most Bitcoin supporters believe.

It all started when a Bitcoin network investigator observed that Foundry USA, the largest mining pool in the world, managed to mine 7 consecutive blocks. Initially, this didn’t seem significant, but it revealed something concerning: the concentration of mining power in the hands of a few.

What happened next was even more alarming — a reorganization of the chain occurred involving several major mining pools. This means that transactions which appeared final were not actually final. The investigator pointed out that Foundry USA’s power is very close to a threshold where what is called “selfish mining” could become truly profitable.

This is where Schwartz’s controversial opinion comes in: he said that Bitcoin’s decentralization does not come from the proof-of-work mechanism itself. On the contrary — proof-of-work is actually a centralized force that Bitcoin must constantly fight against. This is a stark viewpoint and differs greatly from what most traditional Bitcoin supporters promote.

The dilemma Schwartz points out is very real. If Bitcoin attempts to change its mining algorithm to address this issue, it could weaken trust that Bitcoin’s rules are fixed and unchangeable. But if they leave things as they are, the network becomes heavily dependent on the good faith of large miners.

The investigator also highlighted an important difference: Ripple’s XRP ledger does not face these problems because it uses a completely different consensus model. However, naturally, Bitcoin supporters argue that relying on a trusted group of validators could lead to centralization issues of its own.

What’s truly interesting is that Schwartz seems open to the idea that the Bitcoin community might choose to live with this problem for now, because trying to fix it quickly could cause much bigger issues. It’s a case of choosing the lesser evil, reflecting a pragmatic view of the challenges Bitcoin faces in balancing security and decentralization.