I agree with the mining in the client. Put in real gpu mining.
Perhaps it could check the system hashrate and the network hashrate and turn on mining only if the network hashrate "quickly" goes down and or below a certain value. Its needed if only to make investors feel more safe.
Topic: Concerns: The Centralization of a Decentralize Currency - page 2. (Read 3185 times)
I have donated to this Pool. It leans in a direction that is favorable. However, it would be nice to allow a client to 'hash' or 'generate coins'. This was in the early compiled clients. It is understood that it was to much for the average users. However, one doesn't need to look at it from, Hash as fast as possible using all available resources of the host computer.
How about, a simple slider or selection to let the End User decide if he wants to 'generate coins' and if so at what capacity.
Cgminer has an intensity setting so you don't have to has as fast as possible.
I would say no one has to know where the miners or pool ops are. They can be in any country, spread all over the world. They could operate through Tor if they had to. I think attacks on miners and pool ops would result in new infrastructure popping up that resists being found.
That is re-active not pro-active. Plus, Tor nodes are easily mapped and blocked by many services. Yes, there are ways around it but remember that the End User will be the average bloke on the street. At least, that is what is hoped.
Quote
Support "smart" pools like P2Pool.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bringing-decentralization-back-to-the-bitcoin-network-60492
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bringing-decentralization-back-to-the-bitcoin-network-60492
I have donated to this Pool. It leans in a direction that is favorable. However, it would be nice to allow a client to 'hash' or 'generate coins'. This was in the early compiled clients. It is understood that it was to much for the average users. However, one doesn't need to look at it from, Hash as fast as possible using all available resources of the host computer.
How about, a simple slider or selection to let the End User decide if he wants to 'generate coins' and if so at what capacity.
I would say no one has to know where the miners or pool ops are. They can be in any country, spread all over the world. They could operate through Tor if they had to. I think attacks on miners and pool ops would result in new infrastructure popping up that resists being found.
While being a participant in BitCoin for some time now, some concerns have arisen that might be of concern. It seems like power has shifted to miners and to pool OPS. It would seem that if any agency wanted to disable BitCoin or even hurt it; they would go after these operations. It is understood that mining is a necessity and the formation of a pool is a logical next step. However, in order for the growth to the masses, that will be using a compiled client, what happens "if" those assets to the BitCoin community are actively attacked?
Obviously, since we are dealing with 'money', there is a self awareness to each individuals wants and needs. (Greed, to put it short) There is of course a natural process to be greedy. However, this process needs to be tempered with social and community needs. Yes, make a profit and save some 'coins' but don't let it lead to the 'take over' opportunities that come from being to aggressive. It is suggested that a little moderation would be a good thing.
Lets try to illustrate it:
(1)
For purposes of argument, lets say there are 10 miners, 2 pools, and 100 -qt clients in operation.
If someone wanted to stop BitCoin, would it be easier to stop 12 nodes or a 100 nodes?
(2)
If all miners and pools were shut down, what would the person, who only knows bitcoin from the -qt app, do to transfer BTC?
Yes, they could turn on mining with their computer but they wouldn't take the steps necessary to do it.
(3)
Power is being given to those who 'provide' to the system with mining blocks on deciding the direction of the development of BitCoin.
Votes are being taken by those that 'contribute' to the system.
Of course, it is understood that the 'average' person does not 'understand' the development. The problem here is not that they don't understand it but there is very little effort to explain it in layman's terms. P2SH is one example. Pay-to-Script-Hash has fallen down very predictable lines. And votes are pretty much cast with one question in mind: "Does it hurt the operators operations?"
(4)
If BitCoin is to be accepted by the masses, it must be trustworthy AND the 'average' person will need to be accepted into the fold. If that fails to happen, congratulations are in order. The developers have developed a system that is trustworthy, protects the 'high level' operators, and that "No One Uses."
---------------
Intending no disrespect to the developers, there is however a tendency to get locked into ones own interpretation of how things should be without considering the bigger picture. People love to disagree and prove themselves right. Judgements are passed and discussions viewed from often odd perspectives.
Often the 'little people' are overlooked because of their assumed ignorance. This is a failing that often comes back to byte people in the proverbial ass. In short, lets develop the code but lets not leave out the potential 'End Users' from helping to develop it.
Possibly a simple solution would be to utilize a voting 'address' that clients could vote to with a small portion of BTC. Put their money where their mouth is.
And please, put the ability to mine back into the client (-qt) but restrict its hashing capabilities. Just in Case.
/End Rant File
Obviously, since we are dealing with 'money', there is a self awareness to each individuals wants and needs. (Greed, to put it short) There is of course a natural process to be greedy. However, this process needs to be tempered with social and community needs. Yes, make a profit and save some 'coins' but don't let it lead to the 'take over' opportunities that come from being to aggressive. It is suggested that a little moderation would be a good thing.
Lets try to illustrate it:
(1)
For purposes of argument, lets say there are 10 miners, 2 pools, and 100 -qt clients in operation.
If someone wanted to stop BitCoin, would it be easier to stop 12 nodes or a 100 nodes?
(2)
If all miners and pools were shut down, what would the person, who only knows bitcoin from the -qt app, do to transfer BTC?
Yes, they could turn on mining with their computer but they wouldn't take the steps necessary to do it.
(3)
Power is being given to those who 'provide' to the system with mining blocks on deciding the direction of the development of BitCoin.
Votes are being taken by those that 'contribute' to the system.
Of course, it is understood that the 'average' person does not 'understand' the development. The problem here is not that they don't understand it but there is very little effort to explain it in layman's terms. P2SH is one example. Pay-to-Script-Hash has fallen down very predictable lines. And votes are pretty much cast with one question in mind: "Does it hurt the operators operations?"
(4)
If BitCoin is to be accepted by the masses, it must be trustworthy AND the 'average' person will need to be accepted into the fold. If that fails to happen, congratulations are in order. The developers have developed a system that is trustworthy, protects the 'high level' operators, and that "No One Uses."
---------------
Intending no disrespect to the developers, there is however a tendency to get locked into ones own interpretation of how things should be without considering the bigger picture. People love to disagree and prove themselves right. Judgements are passed and discussions viewed from often odd perspectives.
Often the 'little people' are overlooked because of their assumed ignorance. This is a failing that often comes back to byte people in the proverbial ass. In short, lets develop the code but lets not leave out the potential 'End Users' from helping to develop it.
Possibly a simple solution would be to utilize a voting 'address' that clients could vote to with a small portion of BTC. Put their money where their mouth is.
And please, put the ability to mine back into the client (-qt) but restrict its hashing capabilities. Just in Case.
/End Rant File
Jump to: