Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 540. (Read 2032289 times)
The incentives section in bitcoin.pdf refers to miners using CPU power. It does not address the inevitable current and future mining centralization.
Yes, I know that you do not see anything wrong with that picture. The top 6 companies have 60% of the hashrate. What could possibly go wrong? As long as there is sand around...
Yes, but you would be saying the same thing if it were 10 with 60% or 20 with 60%. These are pools, miners can re-direct their rigs anytime. They are not going to conspire to destroy BTC, what would be the point.
exactly right. if Bitcoin becomes a mainstream currency, mining pools have a chance to become the accountants of the entire system which would mean enormous profits. but if they attack themselves, they get nothing.
Yes, I know that you do not see anything wrong with that picture. The top 6 companies have 60% of the hashrate. What could possibly go wrong? As long as there is sand around...
Yes, but you would be saying the same thing if it were 10 with 60% or 20 with 60%. These are pools, miners can re-direct their rigs anytime. They are not going to conspire to destroy BTC, what would be the point.
oooooooh. i am SO scared:
Yes, I know that you do not see anything wrong with that picture. The top 6 companies have 60% of the hashrate. What could possibly go wrong? As long as there is sand around...
The real problem is the inevitable centralization of mining. Year after year, the number of active mining pools go up.
Today's hashrate distribution: F2Pool 20% + AntPool 12% + GHash.IO 10% = 42% of the network. Unknown miners: 30%.
It only would take for a fraction of those "unknown" miners to collude with the three leading pools (assuming they are indeed separate entities) in order to attack the blockchain.
Very concerned about the long-term viability of this experiment.
Very concerned.
oooooooh. i am SO scared:
nice advertising:
The real problem is the inevitable centralization of mining. Year after year, the number of active mining pools go up.
Today's hashrate distribution: F2Pool 20% + AntPool 12% + GHash.IO 10% = 42% of the network. Unknown miners: 30%.
It only would take for a fraction of those "unknown" miners to collude with the three leading pools (assuming they are indeed separate entities) in order to attack the blockchain.
Very concerned about the long-term viability of this experiment.
Very concerned.
with confidence measures like this, who needs enemies?
Brazil’s government will raise taxes on fuel, imports, credit and cosmetics as part of efforts to restore confidence in its fiscal discipline, Finance Minister Joaquim Levy said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-19/brazil-raises-taxes-by-7-5-billion-to-improve-confidence.html
Brazil’s government will raise taxes on fuel, imports, credit and cosmetics as part of efforts to restore confidence in its fiscal discipline, Finance Minister Joaquim Levy said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-19/brazil-raises-taxes-by-7-5-billion-to-improve-confidence.html
The real problem is the inevitable centralization of mining.
Year after year, the number of active mining pools go up.Year after year, concern trolls talk about the "inevitable centralization" of mining.
And year after year the bitcoin faithful bury their head in the sand, "if we don't worry about it, it is not a problem".
I have wondered if several decades from now, governments might not end up securing the blockchain by goverment-funded mining in order to protect the economy, property records etc. from evil 51% attacks by terrorist groups or other nations. I might be dreaming of unicorns and rainbows though....
i keep thinking of that great article by Stefan Thomas way back in the first issue of Bitcoin Magazine May 2012 where he writes a fictitious article about foreign state sponsored blockchain 51% attack with an alert US gvt defense mechanism in place that springs into action. it's a great article.
The real problem is the inevitable centralization of mining.
Year after year, the number of active mining pools go up.Year after year, concern trolls talk about the "inevitable centralization" of mining.
And year after year the bitcoin faithful bury their head in the sand, "if we don't worry about it, it is not a problem".
I have wondered if several decades from now, governments might not end up securing the blockchain by goverment-funded mining in order to protect the economy, property records etc. from evil 51% attacks by other nations or terrorist groups. I might be dreaming of unicorns and rainbows though....
also doesn't explain the Peter Todd debate reference from someone.
It seems I've missed this one. Care to share a pointer?
Go back over the last few days of posts.
All I remember is some tweet from a guy who is threatened by the existence of Blockstream (and many in the rapidly expanding ecosystem are.)
That was me who posted, here is the article for reference:
http://cointelegraph.com/news/113314/last-minute-tnabc-changes-garza-cancels-robot-roger-ver-and-more
Thanks for the link, appreciated.
The real problem is the inevitable centralization of mining.
Year after year, the number of active mining pools go up.Year after year, concern trolls talk about the "inevitable centralization" of mining.
And year after year the bitcoin faithful bury their head in the sand, "if we don't worry about it, it is not a problem".
The real problem is the inevitable centralization of mining.
Year after year, the number of active mining pools go up.Year after year, concern trolls talk about the "inevitable centralization" of mining.
i made a point some time ago that if Bitcoin were to become a global reserve currency, much like gold, due to maintaining the 1MB block size, all Bitcoin 2.0 projects trying to ride the MC would be eliminated due to high tx costs. in that case, the blockchain would only be applicable to Bitcoin as Money:
Bitcoin can't be money with a capped transaction rate.Gold only maintains purchasing power due to being subsidized by central banks - there's no such thing as intrinsic value for a currency.
If those transaction rate limits are hit and the situation isn't fixed, then Bitcoin will disappear.
I think Gavin has been working on a solution, where block limit grows over time, using the testnet. Which got me thinking--the fact that we have a testnet is pretty cool in itself--if only central banks had one to test interest rate adjustments!
Bitcoin can't be money with a capped transaction rate.
Gold only maintains purchasing power due to being subsidized by central banks - there's no such thing as intrinsic value for a currency.
If those transaction rate limits are hit and the situation isn't fixed, then Bitcoin will disappear.
Gold only maintains purchasing power due to being subsidized by central banks - there's no such thing as intrinsic value for a currency.
If those transaction rate limits are hit and the situation isn't fixed, then Bitcoin will disappear.
The transaction rate limits are fixable. The real problem is the inevitable centralization of mining. It seems that no one knows how to fix that. Bitcoin with centralized mining does not make any sense.
i made a point some time ago that if Bitcoin were to become a global reserve currency, much like gold, due to maintaining the 1MB block size, all Bitcoin 2.0 projects trying to ride the MC would be eliminated due to high tx costs. in that case, the blockchain would only be applicable to Bitcoin as Money:
Bitcoin can't be money with a capped transaction rate.Gold only maintains purchasing power due to being subsidized by central banks - there's no such thing as intrinsic value for a currency.
If those transaction rate limits are hit and the situation isn't fixed, then Bitcoin will disappear.
i made a point some time ago that if Bitcoin were to become a global reserve currency, much like gold, due to maintaining the 1MB block size, all Bitcoin 2.0 projects trying to ride the MC would be eliminated due to high tx costs. in that case, the blockchain would only be applicable to Bitcoin as Money:
https://twitter.com/bramcohen/status/557287567121346560
https://twitter.com/bramcohen/status/557287567121346560
also doesn't explain the Peter Todd debate reference from someone.
It seems I've missed this one. Care to share a pointer?
Go back over the last few days of posts.
All I remember is some tweet from a guy who is threatened by the existence of Blockstream (and many in the rapidly expanding ecosystem are.)
That was me who posted, here is the article for reference:
http://cointelegraph.com/news/113314/last-minute-tnabc-changes-garza-cancels-robot-roger-ver-and-more
Quote from: above linked story
by Ian DeMartino @ 2015-01-16 10:47 PM
...
There was a planned debate between Blockstream's Adam Back and Bitcoin Core Developer Peter Todd, but Back reportedly canceled just before this article went to press. It is unclear why, and we are attempting to reach out to him for comment. ...
...
There was a planned debate between Blockstream's Adam Back and Bitcoin Core Developer Peter Todd, but Back reportedly canceled just before this article went to press. It is unclear why, and we are attempting to reach out to him for comment. ...
More clear now I guess. In general, after countless blatant pump-for-hire stories, I rate the reliability of many of these crypto-rags to be a step below an off-hand tweet from some random wanker.
also doesn't explain the Peter Todd debate reference from someone.
It seems I've missed this one. Care to share a pointer?
Go back over the last few days of posts.
All I remember is some tweet from a guy who is threatened by the existence of Blockstream (and many in the rapidly expanding ecosystem are.)
That was me who posted, here is the article for reference:
http://cointelegraph.com/news/113314/last-minute-tnabc-changes-garza-cancels-robot-roger-ver-and-more
also doesn't explain the Peter Todd debate reference from someone.
It seems I've missed this one. Care to share a pointer?
Go back over the last few days of posts.
All I remember is some tweet from a guy who is threatened by the existence of Blockstream (and many in the rapidly expanding ecosystem are.)
Jump to: