Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 538. (Read 2032289 times)

Ha-ha-ha, this Trolfi fellow is so funny and awesome.   

How come I never got a vanity troll?  It's not fair!

And by "not fair" I actually mean "not a perfectly equal, utility-blind, Pareto-neutral, strictly democratic outcome."  (Just like JorgeStolfi.)

What variables would you like to know to make you cofortable?

Nah, I am not quite as deluded as you seem to be about the impact of posting on a forum. I'm just trolling you.

Now go back and replay some vague scenario purporting to show that centralization is going to kill bitcoin but we are too self-deceived to understand it. After you get a number of thoughtful replies, proceed to ignore them and do it all over again. And then do that again. You seem to think it's a good use of your time.

I'm not sure I would take anything as a given just because someone made a colorful pie chart.  Specifically, it is known that an entity with a high percentage of hashing power freaks people out.  Were I running an outfit who had the potential to form such a pattern, I would split things up long before a threatening pattern emerged.  Behind the scenes at a social level reality might be quite different.

Secondly, I don't find it very easy to get much of a sense of how many chips are in a noisy box someone's back room vs. how many are submerged in an oil bath in some datacenter.  Either type could change behavior slightly to influence the pie charts, but there would be a variety of differences in why they would do so and what impacts it would have.

Thirdly, and somewhat related to the above, if a pool for some mysterious reason started to give miners and extra good deal, I would expect that a fair fraction of the home-owner types would not really stare a gift horse in the mouth and jump on over.  Even if they knew in the back of their minds it was a bad idea for the ecosystem it would be sorely tempting to leave it to the other guy to try take the bullet.  This especially if it's the difference between a profit and a loss, and the gear one is running is approaching obsolescence anyway.

I sense sort of a desperate hope on the part of the naturally hopeful in these discussions of mining centralization.  Certainly I'd want fewer unknowns and more knows before I was very comfortable with huge fraction of my net worth riding on Bitcoin.

His point, and it is a good one, is that the available evidence points to a trend away from increasing centralization.

I have pointed out that the charts don't tell the whole picture, but if you are going to use these charts to make your case, your case entirely fails.

This is the opposite of what is happening.
It is because we are worried about it that it is not a problem.
Whenever centralization increases, the twitter storms and articles splash everywhere and miners react.

http://insidebitcoins.com/news/a-move-to-curb-bitcoin-mining-centralization/27042

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/9402/mining-pool-centralization-crisis-levels/

http://bitcoinist.net/the-centralization-of-mining-pools/

http://www.bitcoinx.com/bitcoin-developer-gavin-andresen-weighs-in-on-centralized-mining-and-the-ghash-situation/

I've also addressed this issue in public speaking engagements at conferences, as have many others.  Many people are concerned, very few are "burying their heads", and most of those aren't mining.  If you think people aren't taking *you* seriously, it may be the way you write.  It sounds like concern trolling when you write characterisations like: "faithful, head buriers".  It reads like an attempt to gets folks' dander up when you equate them with this guy:

The point is that mining is becoming more decentralized, and this much reduces the likelihood of "cartels".

What is your point?  The disaster did not happen until now, so the risk does not exist?

In 2012 and even in 2013 the miners were not as stressed as they are now.  There weren't as many big farms as there are now, were there?

Cartels and monopolies take years to form.  The big miners and pools are still in flux, but may soon stabilize (centralized). 

Humble apologies  . Both quotes were Trolfi. Fixed the post now.

Do you really hope to save bitcoin by playing such stupid games?

Because a chart showing many months isn't relevant. What matters is the changes that occur within the two week adjustment. It could be random but I'm guessing there is a big drop today because there are a lot of these slow blocks, and it is still happening.

Right now:



Also:

Estimated Next Difficulty:   43,273,619,462 (-1.59%)

I don't think the *olfis have been around long enough. Distribution was far worse previously:

January 2012                                                                                                April 2013

not sure why you should suddenly start getting longer confirmation times:

the 2 *olfi's around here seem incapable of noting trend in the mining distribution charts, ie, moving towards decreased centralization as mining becomes commoditized.

We can't know. We can only think in probabilities.

P(mining pools collude) > P(unknown miners know each other) * P(unknown miners collude)

The odds that DF contacts Ghash (they have public email addresses) and they scheme up some unconfirmed tx censorship or double-spends, is highly unlikely as news of the stunt would crush both their business models, but is still more likely than the risk from unknown miners.

Assuming these total 50% which is not even the case now, hashpower is well spread out lately.

OK, we get it.  You are yet another Marxist who resents/hates power laws and Pareto distributions.  You probably also think equality of outcome is the only proof of a system's fairness.  "ZOMG a Fibonacci retracement!  What about the children?  Call the BIS and print more money everywhere, forever!"

It's bad enough we have to put up with your type's wailing about how the few most innovative and productive people control far more assets than the useless eaters.

But now you're updating the SJW rhetoric and bringing it into the world of digital currencies, where we formerly had a moment of peace without you looters.

Such FUD hasn't slowed BTC down one iota, and it never will.  Because cryptography interprets regulation as damage, then routes around it.   

Don't get me wrong; I actually like the idea.  It is one way to achieve what I feel is among the most important factors; getting infrastructure support widely distributed among the userbase.

Back around the time when ASIC first appeared I hypothesized about a mining rig in the form-factor of a standard hot water heater heating element.  Not many people would swap out their entire water heater since it's an expensive hassle.  Far more people would screw in a new element to replace the existing one however.

Since then I've changed my mind on the economics.  For 4.5 years since I first read the whitepaper I felt that using Bitcoin as an exchange currency was absurd since it is so inefficient and such overkill.  As far as I'm concerned time has proven me right.  There is simply no realistic 'sweet spot' where transaction fees provide any real support.

Now, it might make sense if you had a handful of sidechains that you liked to support them and merge-mine Bitcoin on the side (since most sidechains would likely require it.)  I'm guessing that some sidechains would do such things as provide better service for those who actively provided infrastructure support.  Mostly I could see sidechains appealing to people because they are sponsored and benefit entities that the user wishes to support anyway.  With extra incentives like this I could imagine there being enough reason to acquire and operate mining rigs on otherwise free electricity.

I also use electricity to heat the water in my shower 12 months a year.

Very true.  All we need is to teach fish to mine Bitcoin and we're all set.

Can anyone get one of these Bitcoin heaters? Home Hardware?