Pages:
Author

Topic: Is Bitcoin not decentralized anymore? - page 5. (Read 6981 times)

hero member
Activity: 1582
Merit: 502
June 17, 2014, 08:37:27 AM
#97
Nope, if the protocol was to be changed as to not allow a node to submit x number of blocks within x time, and all nodes agree to this, it would be a start.

How are you going to determine how many blocks a node has submitted?

By assigning each node with a personal signature maybe.

I am not an expert on the matter.

I am just making a suggestion here.
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 4801
June 17, 2014, 08:30:00 AM
#96
Nope, if the protocol was to be changed as to not allow a node to submit x number of blocks within x time, and all nodes agree to this, it would be a start.

How are you going to determine how many blocks a node has submitted?
hero member
Activity: 1582
Merit: 502
June 17, 2014, 08:15:52 AM
#95


Honestly, I don't care he's still mining there. He's a small fish, he admits that.



Yes its down to 41% but the fact is that not that his a small fish , its the fact that 1000 small fishes act the same way , then it is a problem and this is whats happening.

Every small fish keeps saying I am a small fish bla bla bla... Small fish + 1000 Small fishes = Alot of fucken fishes!

And I am surprised this was not seen in the original protocol, it was even said in early posts that large organisations will be mining, how couldn't someone as smart as Satoshi and CO see this coming.

I have made a suggestion here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/51-can-be-prevented-so-long-as-all-nodes-agree-655572   
(and a couple of posts above yours)
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 250
June 17, 2014, 08:13:19 AM
#94


Honestly, I don't care he's still mining there. He's a small fish, he admits that.



Yes its down to 41% but the fact is that not that his a small fish , its the fact that 1000 small fishes act the same way , then it is a problem and this is whats happening.

Every small fish keeps saying I am a small fish bla bla bla... Small fish + 1000 Small fishes = Alot of fucken fishes!

And I am surprised this was not seen in the original protocol, it was even said in early posts by satoshi that large organisations will be mining with powerful machines or something like this, how could someone as smart as Satoshi and CO not see this coming.
legendary
Activity: 2296
Merit: 1014
June 17, 2014, 08:01:04 AM
#93
They are most likely rumors , nothing do to with the price no worry .
as above, not very smart people thinking about insane stupid solutions
thats sad
legendary
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1188
hero member
Activity: 1582
Merit: 502
June 17, 2014, 07:43:21 AM
#91
Erm, what?
The protocol needs to change as to allow NO-ONE to grow past 10-15% max.

That's what I want.

LoL. How exactly do you expect them to do that ?

Through some system of centralised control ?


Nope, if the protocol was to be changed as to not allow a node to submit x number of blocks within x time, and all nodes agree to this, it would be a start.

Hashing power is measured by how many blocks are solved by one pool or miner at the day right?

If you can limit that then problem solved.

Innit?
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1029
June 17, 2014, 07:39:37 AM
#90

This is a hard fork that is required.

What happens next time we get 51% ?
Move your miners again?


Yes! that is exactly what hashers (distinct from miners) should do. My advice is simple: if a pool has more than 30% of the network hash-power, point your hashers at a different one.

If you get tired of switching pools, you can join P2Pool (or something like it): it is a decentralized pool.

If a hard-fork happens, I will have to re-evaluate my interest in Bitcoin. A pool (Deepbit) controlled more than half the hash-power before. No hard-forks were used to correct that: people simply moved away from the pool. I fail to understand why that is not a viable option every time a pool gets too large.


Because people in general, are greedy bastards. As we could see few days ago, ppl DID NOT move their miners away from pool that HAD 51%!! That pool had to move it's own hash power!! So relaying on "people" is as bad as it gets. Hard fork is needed very very much. "People" are really bad at making decisions that go against their own profit (moving to other pool for example where they will earn little bit less).
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 3000
Terminated.
June 17, 2014, 07:36:39 AM
#89
Erm, what?
The protocol needs to change as to allow NO-ONE to grow past 10-15% max.

That's what I want.

LoL. How exactly do you expect them to do that ?

Through some system of centralised control ?

Disable pool mining altogether in some way, problem solved. Or https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2Pool only.
legendary
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1188
June 17, 2014, 07:32:53 AM
#88
Erm, what?
The protocol needs to change as to allow NO-ONE to grow past 10-15% max.

That's what I want.

LoL. How exactly do you expect them to do that ?

Through some system of centralised control ?
hero member
Activity: 1582
Merit: 502
June 17, 2014, 07:14:17 AM
#87
Because BTC will never become mainstream if this weakness remains.
And you cannot expect miners to keep an eye and keep changing pools instead of just fixing the problem once and for all.

It's not a weakness, it's a strength.

All you people calling for a hard fork don't realise you're asking for a disaster.

Right now, no mining pool can take their mining power past 50% because it will break their business model. That's why GHash are calling for this - so that they can take their "monopoly" past 50% without devaluing the bit coin economy.

We need to let this scenario play itself out and NOT pander to mining monopolists. Over time, mining businesses will start to naturally decentralise through their inability to grow limitlessly.

On the other hand, if we implement a hard fork, the happiest of all concerned will be the pools who will now safely be able to grow their monopoly to 75% or even 90% without the prospect of an inhibitory devaluation at 50.

That's what people are asking for here with this hard fork nonsense - 90% mining monopolies. That prospect is far more daunting that a pool hitting 50% where the worst they can do is double spend the next block the odd time.


Erm, what?
The protocol needs to change as to allow NO-ONE to grow past 10-15% max.

That's what I want.
legendary
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1188
June 17, 2014, 07:11:02 AM
#86
Because BTC will never become mainstream if this weakness remains.
And you cannot expect miners to keep an eye and keep changing pools instead of just fixing the problem once and for all.

It's not a weakness, it's a strength.

All you people calling for a hard fork don't realise you're asking for a disaster.

Right now, no mining pool can take their mining power past 50% because it will break their business model. That's why GHash are calling for this - so that they can take their "monopoly" past 50% without devaluing the bit coin economy.

We need to let this scenario play itself out and NOT pander to mining monopolists. Over time, mining businesses will start to naturally decentralise through their inability to grow limitlessly.

On the other hand, if we implement a hard fork, the happiest of all concerned will be the pools who will now safely be able to grow their monopoly to 75% or even 90% without the prospect of an inhibitory devaluation at 50.

That's what people are asking for here with this hard fork nonsense - 90% mining monopolies. That prospect is far more daunting that a pool hitting 50% where the worst they can do is double spend the next block the odd time.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1020
hero member
Activity: 1582
Merit: 502
June 16, 2014, 02:30:43 PM
#84

This is a hard fork that is required.

What happens next time we get 51% ?
Move your miners again?


Yes! that is exactly what hashers (distinct from miners) should do. My advice is simple: if a pool has more than 30% of the network hash-power, point your hashers at a different one.

If you get tired of switching pools, you can join P2Pool (or something like it): it is a decentralized pool.

If a hard-fork happens, I will have to re-evaluate my interest in Bitcoin. A pool (Deepbit) controlled more than half the hash-power before. No hard-forks were used to correct that: people simply moved away from the pool. I fail to understand why that is not a viable option every time a pool gets too large.


Because BTC will never become mainstream if this weakness remains.
And you cannot expect miners to keep an eye and keep changing pools instead of just fixing the problem once and for all.
And to be honest I do not want to lose faith on  BTC.
I am working on a couple of projects regarding BTC and it makes me wonder if my time and investment is safe.
The way things are (with all the bad news) it's kind of scary.

PS: Why would you have to re-evaluate if a hard fork was made as to ensure that the network is safe?
legendary
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1001
Let the chips fall where they may.
June 16, 2014, 02:20:55 PM
#83

This is a hard fork that is required.

What happens next time we get 51% ?
Move your miners again?


Yes! that is exactly what hashers (distinct from miners) should do. My advice is simple: if a pool has more than 30% of the network hash-power, point your hashers at a different one.

If you get tired of switching pools, you can join P2Pool (or something like it): it is a decentralized pool.

If a hard-fork happens, I will have to re-evaluate my interest in Bitcoin. A pool (Deepbit) controlled more than half the hash-power before. No hard-forks were used to correct that: people simply moved away from the pool. I fail to understand why that is not a viable option every time a pool gets too large.
full member
Activity: 238
Merit: 100
June 16, 2014, 02:04:14 PM
#82
The question should be:  is bitcoin decentralized enough?  The fact is when a new block is mined, that miner or pool has  limited control over what transactions get included in that block and subsequent blocks they mine.  Once another miner or pool mines another block, then the previous miner no longer has that limited control.  Also, once a block is mined, it is up to the rest of the network to agree to that broadcast block as the longest chain.  If other nodes on the network find a major problem with a block, then they will likely not accept that as the longest chain.  According to this site:  https://getaddr.bitnodes.io, bitcoin has 7859 nodes in 99 countries.  Nearly all have to agree on the longest chain.  I would call that decentralized enough. 

tldr; Each new block mined is subject to limited attack by the miner who mined it and subsequent blocks that same miner is able to mine.  However, with 7859 nodes in 99 countries, most of whom have to agree on the longest chain, bitcoin is decentralized enough.

just because its distributed doesnt mean that it is also decentralized.  I still cant figure out what took GH so long to back things off.  Why did they not start backing down once they reached 45%
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1029
June 16, 2014, 01:56:57 PM
#81
I guess the more power that is out there the stronger the network becomes, but still...
That is not case i'm afraid.

As we could all witnessed few days ago, network is not safer with ASIC's than it was before them. If ASIC's were never made, we would have 1000x more active miners than we have now.
It would be same investment (or maybe even bigger) for someone to produce enough GPU's to attack that network as it is now (to produce enough ASIC's to attack network).

And history has shown, that, to attack network, you don't need to build 1 single chip (gpu or ASIC). All you need is high quality pool that makes money out of that network anyway, and you can control network like it's yours. Ain't that just silly situation?

Makes you head spin when you think about it.

"How to attack Bitcoin network" DIY guide:
1) Create mining pool
2) Remove mining fee's, but offer secondary product related to mining on which you will make insane amount of money
3) Keep making money and attracting miners
4) Once you have enough hash power, execute attack

That way you 1) Make shitload of money and 2) Attack BTC network
And naive ppl are counting how much $$$ attacker would have to spend on "new hardware".  Cheesy
hero member
Activity: 1582
Merit: 502
June 16, 2014, 01:53:38 PM
#80

No mate, my argument is that I am not the one responsible for this.
The dev team could have prevented it with a hard fork yet still choose to ignore it.

Why should I lose on my investment when the ones controlling the entire project ain't doing nothing about it?

A hard-fork is a last resort that very well may kill the project.

If the dev team controls the entire project, then something is very wrong. Gavin Anderson has had a policy of being very conservative with protocol changes. This allows the development of alternate implementations. Currently the vast majority of the miners use the reference implementation, possibly with minor tweaks. That does not always have to be the case though.





This is a hard fork that is required.

What happens next time we get 51% ?
Move your miners again?

This is an important issue.
In fact it is the most important issue right now if BTC is to survive.

Expecting miners to move point their equipment elsewhere everytime we have something like this is a weakness in the protocol.

If BTC is to survive the dev team should eliminate all weaknesses now that BTC is still young.
legendary
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1001
Let the chips fall where they may.
June 16, 2014, 01:36:29 PM
#79

No mate, my argument is that I am not the one responsible for this.
The dev team could have prevented it with a hard fork yet still choose to ignore it.

Why should I lose on my investment when the ones controlling the entire project ain't doing nothing about it?

A hard-fork is a last resort that very well may kill the project.

If the dev team controls the entire project, then something is very wrong. Gavin Anderson has had a policy of being very conservative with protocol changes. This allows the development of alternate implementations. Currently the vast majority of the miners use the reference implementation, possibly with minor tweaks. That does not always have to be the case though.



hero member
Activity: 605
Merit: 500
June 16, 2014, 01:18:25 PM
#78
Who cares who you think created the problem. You acknowledge there is a problem but you choose to perpetuate it rather than mine elsewhere. And for what? To get a few satoshis worth of Devcoin and Ixcoin?
The hash rate has decreased. It is now at most 43%.

Honestly, I don't care he's still mining there. He's a small fish, he admits that.

But I'm looking at your statement and you declare that's it's his fault he's sitting there and continuing mining.

Look at the charts. The mining has decreased substantially.

As such, there is no issue with him still mining there.

He is not perpetuating the problem. Others are solving it, and he's just adding his two cents.

Unless you can prove that him changing pools will change 1% of the total hashrate, I see no issue.

You're fucking hopeless man, hopeless. Keep mining at Ghash, you deserve each other
I'm not even going to explain this.

So, you're calling 43% a huge success? The mining has decreased, because some people decided to do something, while others sat back and said "it's not my problem" and continued to mine there.
Pages:
Jump to: