Topic: Bitcoin should be decentralized even further (Read 2237 times)

You do have a point there, mate. No matter how hard we try, there would be no such thing as total decentralization. Any kind of cryptocurrency, will face the same issues as Bitcoin.

Thus, it would be important to try to minimize centralization as much as possible to ensure a strong network and good democracy towards the success of a specific blockchain for years to come.

Maybe someday, ASIC costs would become cheaper, greatly maximizing the chances for entry to anyone interested in participating on the security of Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency's network.

I wish that Bitcoin would become great again by allowing anyone to easily mine coins even if they don't have access to an ASIC. Nevertheless, if Bitcoin becomes more adopted by people across the world, it could spread out its hashrate even further to increase mining decentralization. Just my opinion. 

I will find something that will make for cheap ASIS, and others.

And many can not be totally decentralized in the world, bitcoin is no different.

Yes. I believe that UASF is the way to go, instead of leaving the power only to the miners themselves. Once people become tired of the increasing unconfirmed transactions on the Bitcoin network, they would immediately support UASF, to help Bitcoin scale, as it is up to this date where a solution hasn't been implemented because miners are too greedy and want the fees to rise.

But if UASF fails, then Bitcoin might never scale, leading the path for other altcoins to take the lead. The decline in Bitcoin's market share has a lot to say, since people are switching their views to other alternatives for their daily transactions.

Nevertheless, anything could happen with Bitcoin, so it is best to stay alert and diversify, in case it fails. Just my thoughts. 

Well that's a futuristic solution we are looking at what can be done now and whether they will be accepted by the entire community without any discrepancies and opinionated nonsense.

Many people believe that the UASF can solve the problems because bitcoin users can directly decide what they want to do with the Bitcoin, not just the miner. It will take a lot of time to make it become true. First of all, we need to confirm all pending transaction first

Oh really?
Throw your phone on the ground and count the chips.

Then come back and tell me how many chips are in an S9. You cant' develop a miner with 1000 chips?

You really want to make a full of yourself , do you?

You may want to read again what I wrote

What I tell you is a fundamental limit which you can't even theoretically overcome. You will never come close to that limit in practice because "there are too many pulses that wait in the line for the oscillator" or something to that tune. But it doesn't mean that this limit is not there. The whole point is that it is always there, and you can't possibly overcome it. At least, not in this Universe. The same pertains to ASIC's, so if some physical process (which can be used for mining) requires a sort of synchronization (like the Planck time, which is the minimum theoretically possible length of time between two events in a causal chain) due to the nature of the world around us, you won't be able to "design a miner with dual triple or 1000 processors". Are really that dense or what?

Again showing you have no clue.
The noise is not because you can't get the "result" it's no result it's a damn pulse, the noise is because there are too many pulses that wait in the line for the oscillator.


But since in the technically field you fail like all the Paki posters let's simplify this for you.

You design an algo that can be mined only by a computer.
What stops a company to design a miner with dual triple or 1000 processors and the equal amount of ram ?
Nothing.

And in terms of processing power/electricity consumption the daily usage computers will get trashed.
Because you need to power things that are not needed by a miner.
Because you're wasting thousands of resources on the OS.

There is no algo that can't be mined by an improved miner that will consume only a minuscule amount of the electricity the usual desktop or gpu array eats up.

So there is no algo for which you can't design an ASIC.

If you try to clock your chip above certain frequency (even if all settling delays are brought to naught), it will just stop working and will stay in an erratic state. Basically, instead of useful info you will receive just random noise since you won't be able to get the results from one register at one side of the chip required by another register at the other side of the chip before the next tick. Thus the maximum frequency is limited, as I have already said, by the speed of light and size of the chip (I hope you understand what signal propagation is fundamentally limited by). You also ask what this has to do with ASIC's? No problem, I can easily explain to you. If there are physical limits preventing you from doing something, you won't be able to overcome them, no matter how hard you might try. So this has obviously nothing to do with ASIC's, since ASIC's won't be able to overcome these limits either. As simple as it gets

Other than that, you seem to be from a very backward place (but I understand your butthurt)

Yeah yeah yeah...
Again for lines of nothing ... good job.

So if we get the frequency to 100Thz it would mean the signal will not reach the end of the chip?

Come , entertain us more.
Or we could move the the project and development or to the mining area but ... your post are not counted there and you don;t get payed for your 4 liners so I guess you will decline it again.


Probably in paki english or in hindi this sentence makes sense but in this part of the world it simple means you're illiterate.


Of course not infinite but you can clock it far more than current speeds. 10Ghz is nothing if there would be an use for it.
As for the metric of time and space... you remember what this discussion was about?

It was about creating an ASIC.
So, what does your blabbering about how cpu signal cant reach the end of the cpu )) has to do with my point of view?
Nothing.

I will repeat again and again.

There is no algo ASIC proof.

Don't make a complete fool of yourself

The quote you posted is irrelevant. Even if the time it takes for the signal lines to settle to their new state would be equal to zero, that wouldn't change a thing. As I already said, you simply can't understand what I'm telling you due to your density. But I can give you a hint why you can't clock a CPU chip at however high the frequency. A CPU is not a simple wire which you could clock at infinite frequency (i.e. as high as the metric of time-space itself allows), it doesn't just transmit some data. It is a processing unit, after all, not a transmitting wire. Now try to draw a distinction between these two

I guess you're right, mate. It wouldn't make any sense to argue about the current issues and implement a different mining algorithm, since miners are in control of the security and stability of the network. A loss of hashrate, would make the Bitcoin network less robust than what it is nowadays, so it would be best if the pioneer cryptocurrency stays as is.

In the end, I think that the market will decide which cryptocurrency would take the lead in handling mainstream payments. Bitcoin would be left as digital gold or store of value, while an alternative cryptocurrency like Dash would take its place as digital cash. As of today, Bitcoin's market share has declined a lot, and I believe that it will continue to do so in the upcoming years. Just my thoughts. 

Well is clear that you did not attend school.
Or you just took plums picking classes.


This is the number 1 stupidity you have written (today).
Until you go back and make clear what the hell where you thinking when you were saying the signal is not reaching the end of the chip ))))))) , lol the signal is not reaching the end. Should we give the poor signal a bit of water? Maybe he is thirsty!!!

Deisik... cut the crap.
You know shit about a cpu, you haven't worked once with one you haven't even once seen a scheme on how it works or at least an animation of it.

.... hilarious

But wait there is more... you link the wiki page. Good boy. And what do we have here:


You understand 4liner?
The computing power in not about the speed the pulse travels in the chip but on the frequency of those pulses.
That's why we have frequency!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

priceless...
I heard bitmain is hiring , maybe you can share your expertise with them. I'm sure they will be amazed by your knowledge.

How long ago did you finish school?

And did you finish it at all? I guess it is you who should read the Wikipedia article about CPU clock rates. Then you might (purely hypothetically) learn why there is an ultimate limit on these frequencies and the size of the chip. Since you make references to overclocking (which is neither here nor there in regard to my point), it is as clear as day that you don't have a slightest clue what I'm talking about. Maybe, a quote from the article mentioned above will help you somehow (emphasis added):


Now think about that it takes a finite amount of time till this signal reaches all these parts of the chip, and you may finally see the light (and how its speed limit is applicable here). This is the theoretical limit imposed by the laws of nature which you can't escape unless you somehow manage to change these laws themselves

Do the world a favor... go to wikipedia and search clock rate or cpu frequency .

Raising the limit is not meaningless at all.
Ever heard of overclocking? Is overclocking meaningless?
Another Darwin award. Congratulations!!!!!!

You have no clue what that "signal" is and how cpus work.
The problem is not about reaching the other end of the chip the problem is the time between pulses.
But that is to technical for a 12 year old  trying to post 4 liners over and over again.

And again, the whole debate is a joke
So what if a cpu has reached maximum speed? Anyone could simply build a miner with 1000 chips that will run at half the power needed by 1000 computers.
And again specialized miners will win.

You are not in the position to ask me of anything

I hope that brings you peace of mind at last. You should also keep in mind that your "nominations" may be interesting only to the trolls of your rank (the lowest rank among forum trolls bordering on outright spamming). I'm not high, it is just you who is as dense and thickheaded as they come. Raising CPU frequency above certain limit is meaningless since the signal wouldn't be able to reach the other end of the chip when another signal is already coming in (which would end in an indeterminate state). This is the absolute physical limit imposed on the size of the chip and the frequency it is clocked at. This example was to show you how physical limits can quickly put an end to your wild fantasies and sick imagination. It is even truer with respect to algos. Since Dino is hellbent on algos and such things, I think he can explain it to you even better than me, probably with some formulas

Deisik the 5 liners trikes again... with a load of BS.
No matter what you what type o algo you're using you can create a chip that does that and that alone better than the average computer.
Probably on planet  4linesofbs that is true but here on earth we use common sense.


I will nominate this to the stupidity of the year awards.
You have no clue what clockrate is and .. speed of light is finite? Are you high or what?

PS.
I beg you to try and answer in less than 4 lines.
Are you allowed?

You are telling the real situation now with Bitcoin. The miners are now getting to be too powerful and touching them and their earnings can have many repercussions. Sad that it has become this way but we have to find a very acceptable solution to the problem. Now we could not let things go on this way as it is actually Bitcoin itself that will suffer in the long run.

I am interested to know what you mean by "compromise to the compromise"... please explain more.

I'm still not convinced by the supposed "threat" from China, but if I were, I'd be paying much closer attention to geopolitics.  The US and many other Western nations are currently looking inwards, becoming increasingly isolationist and, to a certain extent, navel gazing.  It's almost as though the West has declared war on globalism.  While these countries retreat from the global stage, China, on the other hand, are embracing these ideals and expanding rapidly, with massive investment in infrastructure in not just their own country, but also other parts of world.  This is going to pay off in future.   

China is only going to get comparatively more wealthy as time goes by, because the West has come down with a severe case of the stupids.

And coming back to the subject of Bitcoin, anyone talking about a change of algorithm needs to consider the following:  If you're soiling yourself over the damage a "regular" hard fork might cause (as per the usual narrative in this scaling debate), you should be excreting an order of magnitude more over the damage a change of algo might do if you lack support from the mining community and force their hand.  You can keep repeating your new-found mantra that nodes are the real economic power, but that's all conjecture until you pull the trigger and find out for certain.  The simple fact is, no one has attempted that before and you can't make any guarantees about the outcome.

How brave are you feeling?

---

Static limits suck, get behind this instead.   

Doesn't look surprising that China holding majority of miners, but the controllability is not anymore in the hands of Chinese miners and exchanges which are the key factors for the circulation of bitcoin among the entire population. Due to advancement and ease of availabilities for equipments China holds a good user base for bitcoin and mining.