Hive cannot be taken over.
This is something that is odd to say considering how it came into being. However, as we look around the blockchain world, we see some interesting things developing.
Recently, Forbes had an article that discussed the recentralization of Bitcoin. The article discussed how the system design was flawed from the beginning. This is leading to centralization, something that Satoshi was fighting.
“The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts. Their massive overhead costs make micropayments impossible.”
Sadly, the idea of micropayments is long gone, at least on the base layer. This is compounded by further accusations of centralization.
A Bitcoin developer and researcher named 0xB10C announced on X that looking at the merkle branches that mining pools send to miners BTCcom pool, Binance pool, Poolin, EMCD, Rawpool, and possibly Braiins have exactly the same template and custom transaction prioritization as AntPool. He was implying that under the covers they were all controlled by the same entity. Further data from @mononaut added UltimusPool to the list.
This creates a major problem, especially as it pertains to something like Hive.
Hive Is Resilient In That It Cannot Be Taken Over
Again, this is a counterintuitive statement which I will address shortly.
Before getting to that, let us finish up what the problem is with Bitcoin. If it is indeed being taken over (centralized), what can be done about it?
The answer is nothing. This is a situation that starts with value.
Bitcoin has a major issue; it is Bitcoin. This makes it different than anything else.
Maxis will applaud at finally being validated. Once again, we see things backwards. To believe this is a positive is a mistake. In fact, it is a complete negative.
Bitcoin lacks resiliency because it is Bitcoin. This means the nuclear option is removed. What is that? Forking.
Of course, people will state Bitcoin can be forked. That is true since it was done on a number of occasions. But what do BCash, Litecoin, BSV and others have in common? They aren't Bitcoin.
You could fork Bitcoin 1,000 times, it makes no difference. What you have will not replace Bitcoin.
This is where the ultimate defense is removed.
Hive's Resiliency Is Based Upon The Value Proposition
What is the value of something like Hive?
Here is where we see the situation completely change.
Hive is a decentralized database. If there is something of value in the database, that can be forked and anyone can take hold of it. At the same time, the network could be overtaken with a money attack.
Since we are dealing with DPoS, the distribution of the coins affect things. If someone went on a buying spree, they could do something similar to what Justin Sun did. In this situation, however, open market purchases (or a lot of OTC deals) would have to be undertaken.
That said, what is truly achieved? The data is available to anyone. There is no need to wage a money attack to get the data. Anyone can fork it.
Here is where things get very interesting. The value of the database is a potentiality. It is akin to a highway. What good is the Autobahn if we are using horse and buggies? The value is not in the data itself but, rather, what is done with it.
We now see where building comes in.
What is built on top of the blockchain, utilizing the data, is where the value is. In a voluntary economy, people choose where they want to set up camp.
If one is taking control of the blockchain, nothing on top is acquired. Certainly, application teams can opt to remain. Of course, if the new regime is not to their liking, and a fork takes place, the applications might leave.
This is exactly what happened with Steem when the majority of applications switched chains.
It is the value that is created on top that pushed down to the blockchain. It is why, blockchains have no value on their own (outside of Bitcoin).
Decentralization
We are dealing with a concept that applies to other chains as well. The exception might be Ethereum. This followed a similar path as Bitcoin, being forked many times yet nobody was able to recreate Ethereum. Some chains could hold potential but, thus far, nothing has rivaled it.
One of the issues, in most of the instances, is the concept of centralization. Ethereum, since it switched to PoS, is not decentralized. The founders still have enormous stake, overwhelming the system. The fact the staking pools have a few validators getting the majority of the blocks is an issue.
Forks of the chain have addressed some of the issues. Ethereum is another one where micropayments is impossible. We also see the idea of deflationary money being espoused, proving once again how stability is overlooked.
This is something that can be ignored as stablecoins have stepped up to fill the void. However, when dealing with attack vectors, this is still a point of contention.
What if someone was able to buy out Gavin Wood's stake? Does anyone believe someone like Blackrock could not pour a massive amount of money into Ethereum to gain control? When the likes of Fidelity, BR, and State Street show up, they end up taking massive positions.
Then we have the ETF situation.
If the SEC ever approves this, will we see billions pouring in? Once again, we would see a lot of crypto in the hands of custodians. Could they stake a massive portion of this?
Thus, Ethereum has a similar problem as Bitcoin, albeit to a much smaller degree. Ultimately, users would not care where a kick-ass dApp was posting its data. They simply would use it, only requiring a different coin for gas fees.
The advantage to Hive is the coin distribution is strong. No single person holds more than a few percent of the entire total. To gain even a 25% share would require a lot of money. If done on the open market, this would drive the price up, making the process even more difficult.
Ultimately, what would someone get? Even if successful, a fork with the majority of the applications (games) moving would leave the chain with little value. This creates a massive wall of resiliency.
The fork is one of the most powerful concepts negating the power plays of people with nefarious intentions. It exist for everyone other than Bitcoin. Unfortunately, due to the success of that ecosystem in terms of recognition, it is now boxed in.