Topic: Do you trust the miners? - page 2. (Read 3610 times)

Personally, I trust them.               

previous point

with the price the way it is...the difficulty likely to skyrocket like 2013 again for btc due to knc data halls at 16nm probably responsible imho for the latest rise in difficulty..bitbury's announcement of 100 million miner data hall

http://www.coindesk.com/bitfury-details-100-million-georgia-data-center/

spondoolies latest data hall announcement and merger and 110 TH SP 50 miner as well as the sale (after their data hall is full) in bulk (likely 35-50k a unit)

http://www.spondoolies-tech.com/products/sp50

so the centralization of all mining (home miners are dead for btc) with all the above ..and if most like knc convert btc to usd to cash directly imho that drives price down
for btc (hey again my view likely wrong)

anyway if you have say 9 major miners that have centralized the network for btc ...low prices ......and low adoption yet..how long before they start to try to 'tweak' the
bitcoin development universe into saying that they as network providers are 'overextended' due to low prices of BTC and we need 'mandatory transaction fees'

imho that is the most obvious first step in centralization of mining ...ie ......flat difficulty rise because no one else can make the asic's at this level (nor investment $$$$) by
this point in time just the above 9 or so big miners so as long as the difficulty is not rising nor price whats a 'cartel' to do? ie hey we need transaction fees at such and such
a rate to feed the 9 network beasts

(the exception for the above is if INTEL or AMD decided they wanted to get into this chip making area ..they are huge enough to crush anyone imho ..but likely they won't)

just saying tis what i'd squeak about should I be such a mega miner whale corp

To be fair, miners are the ones confirming transactions. They deserve to have a say on what the block size is going to be. But bitcoin users are also contributing in one way or another. If transactions were to happen through the blockchain, users would contribute fees for the miners. A median solution would be nice, maybe trusting miners with every future change of the block size cap isn't ideal for everyone but I don't know if there could be a better way for voting for such matters.

There is no pint in trusting miners. Bitcoin network itself decides and chooses the best miner for the block reward. Some cloud mining services was run as a ponzi scheme. But miners are just part of the bitcoin system. In a decentralized environment, we do not need to reply or trust anybody.

Cant really trust miners, there a lot of promises that they have given but in so many reasons I wont be able to trust those miners, I'm sure they are just doing their thing but cant trust my coins to somebody else.

yeah, me too 
in fact very difficult to believe in them
they always promise-ha good things, but ultimately deceptive

How do you plan to send those coins of yours?

I don't trust anyone with my coin specially miners, Im sure they'll use it for their own good. Of course who wouldn't but I don't trust them. 

Do you think that the halving and future halvings will play a big role in bringing "basement mining" back into the limelight?

There are several big BTC ventures that have no good reason to put their full trust on miners when it comes to the block size debate however.

everybody who trust miners is rich,on past time, not nowdays..

If we don't trust them, who else we can trust.

Right now I think it's generally accepted that the power miners have isn't something to be taken away from them as bitcoin has been functioning under those rules for so long. But BIP100 would put the decision on the future of the block size entirely on miners.

if i dont trust the miners my coins wont be here tho

Please give examples of what decisions miners might make that would just benefit themselves but be detrimental to the rest of the community? Miners generally have a lot vested in hardware and Bitcoin in general and are keen to see Bitcoin succeed. I certainly trust miners more that a small-time Bitcoin gambler or sig-campaigner who has very little vested in Bitcoin.

If they piss off the community, the coin that they are mining will be worth less and so they will be making less profit.
It is in their interest to keep people (mostly) happy.

I don't trust the miners to make decisions that benefit the whole comunity and not just themselves.

Around the time I posted this, there was talk about BIP100 giving too much control to the miners. The argument of some was that while miners benefit and are rewarded from bitcoin by nature, their goal is very short term or instant profit, they don't care about bitcoin succeeding, so although the power they have over bitcoin right now is much, users accept that, but trusting them with the block size limit choice seemed to be too much for some. I myself don't think that trusting miners with the block size limit vote would be an issue and hence why I asked this question.

Why wouldn't you trust the miners? they are the ones who secure the network and maintain decentralization. There is an incentive to every and each miner to avoid the 51% attack.