Topic: Is Bitcoin not decentralized anymore? - page 4. (Read 6919 times)

BRO common man, I told you from yesterday I DO NOT want t get into ANY kind of arguments with you.

WHat I want is the ones responsible for the protocol to make sure that it is safe.
EVERYBODY wants that.

Don't you?

Jesus, why are we still arguing?

OK, maybe I got missunderstood myself.

It is not safe to the eyes of newcomers which prevents BTC from becoming mainstream.
That's what I meant.

And yes your coins depend on the protocol which depenends on the core-dev team.
If the protocol is comprimised your coins and private keys mean nothing because your coins will be worthless.

This is totally false by the way. You clearly don't understand how bitcoin works

That isn't saying anything.

Depend on them how?  They can't take my coins just because they have hashing power.  They'd need my private key to do that.

I know exactly what the risks are, but I'm not convinced that you do.  You've been acting very concerned about the fact that a pool exceeded some magical 50% number and seem certain that the protocol needs to be "fixed".  But I'm not sure that you even understand what a mining pool with 51% can do that a mining pool with 49% can't do.


I never said I was VERY smart.  I'm just trying to understand why you think that BTC isn't "safe".

Ok, well now I think we're really getting somewhere  

If Ghash does not worry you, what does? And how will a hard fork solve it.

Honestly yes, I do expect miners to monitor their pools. I don't see what's so unreasonable about this. BTC is the greatest thing to come out of our generation, I'll do whatever I can to help secure the network

To me IT"S NOT.

To newcomers looking into the dangers it is.
Is that clear?

Your coins depend on them.
If you can't see that then I have missunderstood you.
I thought you were a VERY smart man.

You've stated:

"I am having trouble explaining to people that BTC is safe, because really it's not anymore."

Explain what you mean when you say it is "not safe".  What danger do you think exists?

No. It isn't.


Neither the "dev team", nor the "foundation" can make me run a protocol that I don't want to.

I am not worried about any pool doing anything right now bro.
I made that clear.

Can I ask you something?

Do you even have any miners?
Do you own more than 10BTC?

If you do then put your mind to work.

You do not wanna lose that do you?

Neither does GHash (not at this point at least).

GHash does NOT worry me.
They would be stupid to risk a MULTI-million dollar businnes to a 51% attack or double spends when the price of BTC is so LOW (and I am saying this because the price of BTC is peanuts compared to what it will be by the end of the summer).
And they know that.

No 51% attack will happen right now and not even within the next couple of years unless the one doing it has invested a shit load of millions just to crash BTC.
The only one that can do that is the US gov and they don't and you know why?

Because they love the idea of BTC.
It's just idiots like you that don't see things clear.

BTC gives the CIA the tools they didn't have before in trackng down transactions.

As far as decentralization goes, once again you are an idiot.
BTC protocol itself is controlled by a team which is control by a foundation run by an accused pedophile (and some suspect the CIA as well).

Where exactly do you see decentralization in this?


Apart from that:
Once again you are an idiot.....

You expect EVERY single person on the planet that has a miner to just keep an eye just in case some pool gets 51% hashrate to move their miners.

That wont happen.

People are greedy.

And you are an idiot.

And BTC will NOT become mainstream if that is the case.

Did I make my self clear?

PS: Did I mention your an idiot?

You've been quite vocal lately about your concerns related to a mining pool gaining more than 50% of the total network hashing power.

I'm curious, do you understand what the risks are?  Do you know what they can (and can't) do because of that hashing power?  Do you understand what the effective difference is between having 49% of the total hashing power and 51% of the total hashing power?

LOL @ S4VV4AS

My apologies man it's nothing personal. But...

Have you considered the possibility that you're the one that doesn't understand? You've been trying to get the devs to hard fork meanwhile continuing to point your miners to Ghash. Unbelievable.

If you support decentralization, do not mine at pools with >30% of the network. For the last time, a hard fork is not the answer.

So if SHA-256 is compromised, and the core dev team switch to sha-512 you will "re-evaluate"?

Just an example here of a possible scenario that will happen at some point within the next few years.

You fail to understand what I am saying.
Right now (especially after the GHash 51%) I am having trouble explaining to people that BTC is safe, because really it's not anymore.
The reason is simple:
We BELIEVE in a trustless protocol yet we have to trust that the one with 51% share of the network rate will behave.
Does that sound trustless to you?

I explained at least 3 times, but you fail to understand.

"Proof-of-Work" is not a design flaw: it it Bitcoin's defining feature.

If we have to resort to hard-forks to mitigate one entity controlling more than half the hash-power, then the "experiment" will have failed.

PS: the purpose of hashing is to secure the network. If you are blindly pointing your hash-power at whomever pays the most, there is a very real possibility that you are actually attacking the network. Some Pools such as Eligius support getblocktemplate: that lets you point hash-power at pools without willful blindness.

It's little twats like you that pollute this forum dick snot.

This imbecile S4VV4S has been trying hard to get the core dev to listen to him and do something about the problem.

All you do is point fingers and accuse people.

Well guess what dip shit?

I have been more active on the subject than you.

And thank got I forgot to hit the ignore btn yesterday so now I can see what a real dickhead you are.

EDIT: I do apologize for coming out a bit "strong" but you are a real idiot man. Al you do is point fingers and do nothing to help the REAL problem.

People say they want a decentralized Bitcoin, but they're not willing to take any kind of responsibility for it. Like this imbecile S4VV4S. It's up to "someone else" to fix the problem.

Anyone mining on a pool with >30% of the network doesn't believe in decentralization. Simple as that. Govern yourselves accordingly

"DECENTRALIZE!!"

"GIVE US AN ALTERNATIVE TO FIAT!!"

"DON'T BE A LEMMING!!"

"THE POWER OF BITCOIN IS IN YOUR HANDS!!"

*mumble*mumble*mumble*

"Wait! You mean I have to practice what I preach?"

"But that means I'll earn 0.001% less bitcoin!!"

"Besides, someone ELSE will take care of it."

I've been with Slush since 2011.

Despite the fact that many tout the advantages and decentralization of bitcoin, we all crawl back to what benefits our self the most. Human nature. Even when you create a digital haven that could be free of such entrapment's.

And who does this "assigning"?  Some sort of trusted authority?  Doesn't that just replace the miner that has 51% of the network hashing power with some other authority you need to trust?

Ok let's have a calm discussion and make our own suggestions.

So, people want individual nodes, hard forks, or no pool being allowed past 15%.

On the nodes topic; I have no knowledge on that, so don't ask me.

On the fork topic; No. A hard fork is a last resort. You can't willy-billy fork the blockchain.

On the 15% topic; Turn it into 25% and I can kinda of see it happening. GHash and Cex.io should point SOME of their hardware at different pools. Not all, but some at least.