Topic: Are blockchains truly distributed systems? - page 2. (Read 863 times)

Quote from: Wind_FURY on October 03, 2020, 04:06:11 AM

Quote from: DooMAD on October 01, 2020, 08:23:10 AM

Quote from: hv_ on October 05, 2020, 04:57:41 AM

Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users)

Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.

You're welcome to that opinion. If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have). But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network. And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice. You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.

That's how network governance functions. If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead. Just don't expect others to tag along. You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.

More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever

More centralized towards the miners, because fewer full nodes could also mean, it's easier to co-opt the network. Why choose a deaign-decision that undershoots security, instead of overshoot it?

Quote

Only open (not from anos and hiding entities) competition counters centralization - that's where we are and see original Bitcoin works as it should
Put miners on business risk - that's ok

Isn't the "competition" always open?

There is no proof for ' it's easier to co-opt the network. '

It would definitely be easier to Sybil Attack a cryptocurrency network that's scaled in/centralized towards the miners, than a network that's scaling out.

Quote

Some big telecoms run the internet for you

It's harder for them to censor a more scaled out, decentralized network that overshoots security, than undershoot it for the sake of "speed".

Quote

- Snip -

Are you trolling? Roll Eyes

Non-miners (unpayed relay clients, spin up 1000s easy) are the Sybil to the miners ( payed servers )

proof me wrong

If everyone who ran full nodes stopped running them, then the mining cartel would have absolute rule over the network. What would be the point of Bitcoin? Haha.

Where is the trust then ? Why would that very cartel do sth 'bad' ? Could that 'hide' ? And where do they cash out? - no KYC ?

Are you really interested in discussing trust / global finance ?

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: Wind_FURY on October 05, 2020, 03:56:29 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on October 03, 2020, 04:06:11 AM

Quote from: DooMAD on October 01, 2020, 08:23:10 AM

Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users)

Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.

You're welcome to that opinion. If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have). But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network. And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice. You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.

That's how network governance functions. If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead. Just don't expect others to tag along. You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.

More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever

More centralized towards the miners, because fewer full nodes could also mean, it's easier to co-opt the network. Why choose a deaign-decision that undershoots security, instead of overshoot it?

Quote

Only open (not from anos and hiding entities) competition counters centralization - that's where we are and see original Bitcoin works as it should
Put miners on business risk - that's ok

Isn't the "competition" always open?

There is no proof for ' it's easier to co-opt the network. '

It would definitely be easier to Sybil Attack a cryptocurrency network that's scaled in/centralized towards the miners, than a network that's scaling out.

Quote

Some big telecoms run the internet for you

It's harder for them to censor a more scaled out, decentralized network that overshoots security, than undershoot it for the sake of "speed".

Quote

- Snip -

Are you trolling? Roll Eyes

Non-miners (unpayed relay clients, spin up 1000s easy) are the Sybil to the miners ( payed servers )

proof me wrong

If everyone who ran full nodes stopped running them, then the mining cartel would have absolute rule over the network. What would be the point of Bitcoin? Haha.

Blockchains are distributed consensus systems, where verification and consolidation are spread over the network instead of performed on a centralized database. Given that consensus is needed for actions to occur, it is a truly distributed system.

It's actually the opposite. Every single full node re-validates the everyone's transactions.

BrewMaster

legendary

Activity: 2128

Merit: 1293

There is trouble abrewing

Quote from: hv_ on October 01, 2020, 11:10:55 AM

Blockchains are distributed consensus systems, where verification and consolidation are spread over the network instead of performed on a centralized database.

that is a bad way of putting it because it sounds a bit like the nodes are sharing the work when it comes to verification process. the system is decentralized because nodes don't rely on others and verify everything themselves.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

in a world of big open known registered competing mining corps , engaged with bigger regulators and acting compliant - there is no successful attacking anymore

there are no "big open known registered competing mining corps". the biggest mining farms nowadays only have a small portion of the total hashrate and the security is always ensured by the distribution of the mining power (among other things) not by trusting that some corporations will always remain honest.

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: Wind_FURY on October 05, 2020, 03:56:29 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on October 03, 2020, 04:06:11 AM

Quote from: DooMAD on October 01, 2020, 08:23:10 AM

Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users)

Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.

You're welcome to that opinion. If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have). But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network. And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice. You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.

That's how network governance functions. If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead. Just don't expect others to tag along. You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.

More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever

More centralized towards the miners, because fewer full nodes could also mean, it's easier to co-opt the network. Why choose a deaign-decision that undershoots security, instead of overshoot it?

Quote

Only open (not from anos and hiding entities) competition counters centralization - that's where we are and see original Bitcoin works as it should
Put miners on business risk - that's ok

Isn't the "competition" always open?

There is no proof for ' it's easier to co-opt the network. '

It would definitely be easier to Sybil Attack a cryptocurrency network that's scaled in/centralized towards the miners, than a network that's scaling out.

Quote

Some big telecoms run the internet for you

It's harder for them to censor a more scaled out, decentralized network that overshoots security, than undershoot it for the sake of "speed".

Quote

- Snip -

Are you trolling? Roll Eyes

Non-miners (unpayed relay clients, spin up 1000s easy) are the Sybil to the miners ( payed servers )

proof me wrong

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: Wind_FURY on October 03, 2020, 04:06:11 AM

Quote from: DooMAD on October 01, 2020, 08:23:10 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on October 03, 2020, 04:06:11 AM

Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users)

Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.

You're welcome to that opinion. If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have). But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network. And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice. You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.

That's how network governance functions. If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead. Just don't expect others to tag along. You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.

More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever

More centralized towards the miners, because fewer full nodes could also mean, it's easier to co-opt the network. Why choose a deaign-decision that undershoots security, instead of overshoot it?

Quote

Only open (not from anos and hiding entities) competition counters centralization - that's where we are and see original Bitcoin works as it should
Put miners on business risk - that's ok

Isn't the "competition" always open?

There is no proof for ' it's easier to co-opt the network. '

It would definitely be easier to Sybil Attack a cryptocurrency network that's scaled in/centralized towards the miners, than a network that's scaling out.

Quote

Some big telecoms run the internet for you

It's harder for them to censor a more scaled out, decentralized network that overshoots security, than undershoot it for the sake of "speed".

Quote

- Snip -

Are you trolling? Roll Eyes

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: DooMAD on October 01, 2020, 08:23:10 AM

Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users)

Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.

You're welcome to that opinion. If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have). But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network. And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice. You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.

That's how network governance functions. If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead. Just don't expect others to tag along. You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.

More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever

More centralized towards the miners, because fewer full nodes could also mean, it's easier to co-opt the network. Why choose a deaign-decision that undershoots security, instead of overshoot it?

Quote

Only open (not from anos and hiding entities) competition counters centralization - that's where we are and see original Bitcoin works as it should
Put miners on business risk - that's ok

Isn't the "competition" always open?

There is no proof for ' it's easier to co-opt the network. '

Some big telecoms run the internet for you

You are already in that game - good they are really professional and earn money regulated with that. ( sure, they can do lot of shit, cause things might be intransparent - esp money flows...)

Bitcoin is cool, cause it is so TRANSPARENT - not anno, so you can track all that crap / fix it in our legal ways we deved for thousends of year running societies - here is your trust

If you don t trust our legal system you might have problems with those - but Bitcoin lives in it. It can only help to debunk shit cause of transparent money / transaction flows - so get goverements to use it and the fun starts

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: DooMAD on October 01, 2020, 08:23:10 AM

Quote from: DooMAD on October 01, 2020, 10:53:59 AM

Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users)

Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.

You're welcome to that opinion. If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have). But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network. And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice. You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.

That's how network governance functions. If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead. Just don't expect others to tag along. You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.

More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever

More centralized towards the miners, because fewer full nodes could also mean, it's easier to co-opt the network. Why choose a deaign-decision that undershoots security, instead of overshoot it?

Quote

Only open (not from anos and hiding entities) competition counters centralization - that's where we are and see original Bitcoin works as it should
Put miners on business risk - that's ok

Isn't the "competition" always open?

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: DooMAD on October 01, 2020, 08:23:10 AM

You're welcome to that opinion. If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have). But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network. And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice. You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.

That's how network governance functions. If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead. Just don't expect others to tag along. You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.

More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever

It means, like many things in life, if you buy cheap, you often get cheap in terms of quality. Sure, you might pay lower fees, but there's a greater risk of hashrate attacks due to the weaker security, weaker network governance, meaning controversial changes to the protocol could slip through more easily because there are fewer nodes to convince, more chance of people losing faith in your weaker chain and diminishing the value of your funds. If your coin is repeatedly attacked and the value goes to zero, just remember that's what you signed up for because you thought it would save you on fees.

in a world of big open known registered competing mining corps , engaged with bigger regulators and acting compliant - there is no successful attacking anymore

they ensure system is running for the globe at lowest fees to be max attractive

that's what I ve signed for

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: DooMAD on October 01, 2020, 08:23:10 AM

You're welcome to that opinion. If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have). But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network. And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice. You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.

That's how network governance functions. If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead. Just don't expect others to tag along. You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.

More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever

It means, like many things in life, if you buy cheap, you often get cheap in terms of quality. Sure, you might pay lower fees, but there's a greater risk of hashrate attacks due to the weaker security, weaker network governance, meaning controversial changes to the protocol could slip through more easily because there are fewer nodes to convince, more chance of people losing faith in your weaker chain and diminishing the value of your funds. If your coin is repeatedly attacked and the value goes to zero, just remember that's what you signed up for because you thought it would save you on fees.

//EDIT:

Quote from: hv_ on October 01, 2020, 11:10:55 AM

in a world of big open known registered competing mining corps , engaged with bigger regulators and acting compliant - there is no successful attacking anymore

Either you're trying to be funny and I'm not getting the joke, or you genuinely don't understand how weak your chain is. In terms of raw hashrate, your preferred chain is a fly splattered across the windscreen of Bitcoin's 18-wheeler. Even if your chain was compliant with regulators (and it isn't), you need to comprehend that regulators are in no position to help you when your chain gets attacked.

If you wish to continue promoting your forkcoin, please do so in the altcoins board where it belongs.

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: DooMAD on October 01, 2020, 08:23:10 AM

Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users)

Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.

You're welcome to that opinion. If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have). But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network. And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice. You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.

That's how network governance functions. If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead. Just don't expect others to tag along. You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.

More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever

Only open (not from anos and hiding entities) competition counters centralization - that's where we are and see original Bitcoin works as it should
Put miners on business risk - that's ok

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: Wind_FURY on September 30, 2020, 01:15:38 AM

Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users)

Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.

You're welcome to that opinion. If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have). But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network. And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice. You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.

That's how network governance functions. If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead. Just don't expect others to tag along. You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: hv_ on September 28, 2020, 07:00:08 AM

Yerify doesn t mean anything - you can verify what your e-Banking client shows - and go moaning about

Signature verification, checking UTXO not spend twice, checking the input actually exist, etc. Huh

His motive for posting that is for a follow-up debate that users "don't need to run full nodes". OK, maybe we don't, MAYBE, but should the Core developers remove our ability to run one, and undershoot network security?

Nobody can remove anyone to run things for Bitcoin - this is sheer open for all, for good.

Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users)

Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.

The open competition here ensures true and good enough distribution & trust over time

You might trust big telecoms, Google, Amazon, Apple ,... already 'enough' ? Or they would not exist...

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823