Topic: Elephants in the room, both good and bad (Read 1323 times)

No, it wouldn't.
There are lots on mining facilities around the world, taking one down, doesn't has that big of an impact.
http://opengear.com/articles/bitcoin-mining-facility-fire-highlights-benefits-environmental-monitoring-devices

I think I own less personal computers than I did 10 years ago, but now I operate several personal (non-business use) cloud servers one of which is dedicated to running a full node. It is no longer necessary to run a PC at home 24/7 to operate one.

It looks so weird seeing that, how come pc trend is going down? i guess smartphones are taking over.
Well im sure in the future most smartphones will be able to run a bitcoin node.

Yeah..But I dont think it is possible as of now.!

The java wallets that are available for cell phones are an implementation of that. It has been around for years.

1) I've thought so too, and maybe you're just more articulate than I am, but I've had a tough time convincing people that cryptocurrency enthusiasts and space enthusiasts can and should work together.

2) It will get to the point where the nation/religion/whatever would be better off just creating their own cryptocurrency (assuming, of course, that the population that buys into it haven't let their zeal completely drive out common sense). But the rest of us who aren't insane will have an easier job of maintaining consensus if everybody owns an Antminer.

3) I'm not too worried about it. People who still care about hashrate will have a mining rig sitting in a well-ventilated room in a spot where you'd basically have to be Clumsy Smurf or else doing that on purpose to trip over it. For the rest of us, there are still mobile wallets.

laptops != "mobile technology" ... i think we're referring to tablets / phones.

I guess it would be possible to put bitcoin core on a rooted android tablet.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3116134

Im liking the uptrend in mobile technology, ive always got on with laptops nicely and the average price of them is coming down due to this trend. 

Okay, one elephant theoretically tranquilized. And yes, I've read the white paper and came across that segment. Is this implemented in
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/headers-first-synchronization-coming-soon-bitcoin-core/
?

or is this what "lite wallets" refer to....

or are lite wallets just getting their feed from a remote node?


though, from the same block of text

As such, the verification is reliable as long as honest nodes control the network, but is more
vulnerable if the network is overpowered by an attacker.

From the White Paper:
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

8.
Simplified Payment Verification
It is possible to verify payments without running a full network node. A user only needs to keep
a copy of the block headers of the longest proof-of-work chain, which he can get by querying
network nodes until he's convinced he has the longest chain, and obtain the Merkle branch
linking the transaction to the block it's timestamped in. He can't check the transaction for
himself, but by linking it to a place in the chain, he can see that a network node has accepted it,
and blocks added after it further confirm the network has accepted it.

As such, the verification is reliable as long as honest nodes control the network, but is more
vulnerable if the network is overpowered by an attacker. While network nodes can verify
transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated
transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One strategy to
protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid
block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to
confirm the inconsistency. Businesses that receive frequent payments will probably still want to
run their own nodes for more independent security and quicker verification.

Even if it is mostly "centralized" - there is more incentive to be an honest player as well.  Mining farms were predicted from the beginning - as well as nodes residing in these farms.

a 30 gig blockchain on a phone? And thats with current size pre 20-mb block.

We cant have centralized mining.. its something i dont like about Bitcoin, mining tends to be centralized. It would only take a small missile to ruin a big mining facility and bitcoin would collapse.
Ideally we want it dispersed not all in the same place

Indeed, this is a good, thoughtful analysis, mate

1. Bitcoin comes to civilization at a very relevant time. The advent of space travel will make precious metals.... not precious. The concept of an asteroid containing 20 trillion dollars worth of resources ( http://mashable.com/2012/04/26/planetary-resources-asteroid-mining-trillions/ ) will just throw markets (as far as I understand markets). Cryptocurrencies have created something definitively precious. Furthermore, interplanetary markets are now possible.

2. No one talks about the influence of protocol consensus in the future of cryptocurrency. Why is this? This is cryptocurrency's saving grace regarding decentralization, for me, and the number one reason to run a full node - to run the version of the client you believe in. This is your vote. Your client makes the network. Implications of protocol consensus are far and wide. If a centralized power wields control of network hashrate and begins manipulating blockchain, if there are enough independent full nodes, they just install a new core designed to reject the manipulated blockchain branch. Doesn't matter how much hash the malevolent actor has - if your core doesn't accept the work, it won't be added.

Nation forks are possible. Imagine a future of global cryptocurrency usage, and economic turf wars start up - the protectionist, isoloationist zeal gets fired up in citizens of particular countries (for whatever reason - it happens, we're human, we're evolving, its ok) , and they modify their core. These separate blockchains continue until the disagreement is resolved. Can blockchain forks be merged, or would this be a permanent economic divide?

3. Is anyone talking about the decline in personal computers?

Are cryptocurrency networks of the future going to be run on servers or by a population of enthusiasts, and not your average Joe? I'm really looking forward to cryptocurrency banks (circle, coinbase, etc) investing in the infrastructure by developing and releasing Full Node Vaults - a little box you hardline into your router that munches on the blockchain. And then this gets to point 2, because these banks could then control these vaults (depending on the tech level of the user).



Elephants in the room.....

(edited for grammar and spelling)