Topic: Random Layman's Rant on Utility and Centralization (Read 779 times)

^bravo

Your brain works so badly it is really quite sad.
I never blamed you or attacked you here.
I only warned you to really worry about those that you think are allies.
That is all. Pretty simple. I guess too simple for some people.



That is a request, not a prediction.


You are correct. No one, to my knowledge, has published a report analyzing any block data.
So my belief and prediction that it would be performed was wrong.


That is not a prediction, that is a personal opinion and I still stand by that.
Are you saying people do not have a right to different opinions?


That is not a prediction, that is a personal opinion and I still stand by that.
That comment is based on the theory that he was using covert ASICBoost.
Again, are you saying people do not have a right to different interpretation of events?


That is not a prediction, that is a personal opinion and I still stand by that.
That comment is based on the theory that he would make more money
from covert ASICBoost, than a simple 2MB blocksize bump.  
Again, are you saying people do not have a right to opinions?


That is not a prediction, that is a personal opinion and I think most people in the
community agree that the Covert and Overt ASICBoost issue is real. Its
existence and possibility is a threat to the Mining Nash Equilibrium.

And again, are you saying people do not have a right to opinions?



1. Purportedly Barry Silbert pushed for it, but Jihan did participate in the agreement.
So if SegWit is activated and prevents covert ASICBoost from being performed in the future,
then you are correct. Until that point, it is still unknown.
[YET TO BE DETERMINED]

2. Yes, I admit (that I am currently aware of) there has been no published report on the
data of blocks to determine if Covert ASICBoost was being performed on the network.
See, I can admit when I was wrong in situations where I was indeed incorrect. Otherwise,
most of your statements that I am lying or blaming others is mostly incorrect. In those
circumstances, you are using improper terminology and phraseology in order to attribute
things that did not actually occur. Personal opinions and beliefs can not be lies.
[MY PREDICTION WAS WRONG]

3. First, he only published that 19 days or so ago, and our conversation was based upon
the data that existed at the time, over 2 months ago. Second, because he posted his
"scaling roadmap" does not guarantee he will follow it. If he does follow it in the future,
then good on him. But otherwise, it has yet to be determined. So, you can not use that
as evidence that he WILL DO IT, because it could be deception or just changed later
because something better could arise. Only when he does it am I proven incorrect.
Only then my original belief then becomes wrong. Then I will admit being wrong.
[YET TO BE DETERMINED]

4. Yes, I was aware of that and commented on that in our thread, if you look.
The issue here is that if he did enact it, then I was wrong. Currently, there has been no
kill code written and placed into any future code proposals (that I am aware of). So the
issue here is that you take people at their word, and I do not. There is a saying, "Put
your money where your mouth is", meaning if you say you will do it, then do it and prove
it. That is all I am saying. If Jihan is willing to brake the ASICBoost potential in his chips,
then I am very delighted he said that, but will be extremely thrilled and happy when he
actually does it. When he actually does it, I will admit to being wrong.
[YET TO BE DETERMINED]

5. Again, your evidence is recent and my belief was based upon data that existed at the
time. You do not understand what time is it seems. You seem to live in a world where people
do not have the ability to change their minds or opinions about things after more data is
available. Many of your complaints against me is because you require a strict adherence to
opinions. In your world, if I was proven to be incorrect at some point, I should perform
seppuku or the like. This is not how normal people conduct discussions or arguments.  

The signing of the NY Barry Silbert Agreement does not prove that all miners what bigger
blocks, it only proves that they currently are fine with 2MB block size now. If that agreement
had all miners agreeing to implementing an Emergent Block Size Mechanism, I would then
agree with you and admit that I was wrong in my opinion. Otherwise, you are using the
same word games to order to portray me as being incorrect. The reality is that your
insistence and trying to attack me is because this whole issue is either tied to a liability
you may have or just due to your own ego. Also, you took my quote out of context in
which it occurred. If you look at the paragraph you selected from, you will see it is in
regards to the old soft cap on the blocksize, not blocksize in general. Of course Jihan
presumably would love to go to 20MB tomorrow, but that doesn't mean the smallest
mining farm/pool would want that as well. 
[BIG BLOCKS IS NOT 2MB BLOCKS, SO YET TO BE DETERMINED]

6. That does not mean ASICBoost was a fabricated distraction. Because the average
person is easily distracted and is incapable of understanding larger complex issues, does
not mean the original issue (Covert ASICBoost) was not worthy of discussion.

Antbleed was a serious issue from a security point of view which had the capability of
a serious attack vector on Bitmain chips, whether in their control or the control of
customers who bought and use them in their personal location. Either way, each issue
is serious and in my opinion, ASICBoost is more serious since it's consequences are not
temporary but potentially till the end of the network. Antbleed would have been a one
time attack. ASICBoost is a continuous ongoing PoW attack vector type, IMO.
[PEOPLE DISTRACTED DOES NOT EQUAL FABRICATION]


So once again, your attacks against me are not that great. They are mostly word games
and complaints of my phraseology. Most of the time, my opinions are still correct
since they have not been disproven yet. When Jihan/Bitmain performs the action themselves,
then I have been proven wrong. Jihan or miners claiming he/they are going to do something,
does not guarantee that it will occur. If the world truly worked that way, humans would
not need Court systems. Everything would be rainbows and butterflies. Hey, I get it,
maybe you live in rainbow land with gnomes and candy cane bridges. That must be it then.




In Bitcoin, it is everyone's fault. If we do or do not take an action, it only is because
WE did or did not do it. That is what Satoshi devised. That is what Consensus is.
So, you obviously do not understand Consensus or what I am talking about.

Unfortunately for you, it seems every-single-word-needs-to-be-spelled-out-for-you-since
-you-can-not-put-different-ideas-together-to-understand-issues-unless-someone-specifically-
points-the-direction-for-you-and-then-hand-holds-the-baby-so-it-doesn't-get-confused-and-
start-having-a-temper-tantrum. Also-every-little-tittle-better-be-correct-since-if-you-are-not-
specific-in-all-ways-baby-gets-confused-and-needs-to-lash-out. Go-drink-your-bottle-baby.

The real truth is that you are a pretty base simpleton. Your arguments against me are
not very good. I am always willing to be proven incorrect, because then there is actual
enjoyment and advancement in the discussion and life, but with you it is opposite.

The only thing I was incorrect about was that no one published a report on the past block
data within the time frame I assumed. I admit I got that wrong, but all else you claim is
garbage. Otherwise you argument is not very interesting and extremely emotional.





Oh, you weren't threatened but teaching a lesson then?
Here is the lesson, stop wasting your time, because your class room is empty and
your curriculum is crap. It is interesting that you have numbered the links to my
past writing above, as if you have been working on this for a long time. ZZZzzz...



**AgentofCoin bows to the non-existent audience**

See what I mean about sociopaths? We have a live one here.
A sociopath will always blame you for their own problems.
Even his arrogance is your fault.

Speaking of arrogance, here is another good one from the AgentofCoin Sociopathic Classic.

AgentofCoin's Sociopathic Gem #3 - Make stupid predictions then blame the entire community for not sharing his arrogance.

Here our little sociopath's made many predictions, again, very cocky when he made them:


So 0 out of 6.

Here is the good bit, after his own bs blew up in his face, he made this statement:


So now it's EVERYONE's fault.

Everyone was explaining to him where he got it wrong, but he kept doubling down like a cocky little shithead going through puberty.

And now it is EVERYONE's fault for not sharing his arrogance.

You get even more LOL factor once you realize he also posted this:



LOL indeed.

Let's give our little resident sociopath AgentofCoin another round of applause.

And yes, there is more!

That doesn't prove he had knowledge. You are assuming this.

When I used the term "impossible" it was possibly an incorrect term.
I have to go back and read all our discussions, but holding my whole argument to
a minor technicality is children's games. I was making a larger argument about motives
and not minor due diligence itself. I guess that is lost to you now as it was during our
original discussion. You do not know what real lies are, it seems.





Well didn't I concede to that part? Can you cite where I denied that part?
Or course I reserve the right to read over our old discussion and look into everything
again, but my recollection was that I agreed with you and this particular timeline you
created, but as I stated every time, it does not actually prove anything. In a court of law,
the judge would laugh at you since you are jumping to conclusions. The assumption is that
Bitmain DID DO due diligence before signing the HK agreement. But that is an assumption
and not a fact. You asserted it was a fact, and thus our original disagreement. You only
proved that there was a decent timespan for Bitmain to perform proper due diligence,
that is all you have done here. Anything more is speculation.

My main argument was not based in Bitmain's due diligence alone. As you will recall,
I even came up with a conspiracy theory as to a possible answer that fits pieces that are
still unknown. It was a theory only proposed and created by accepting your due diligence
timeline as true, yet you are not providing that evidence to our non-existant audience.

You are lying by omission.  




You don't understand discussions and argument then.
Everything I said in the following, if that is true (since I need to read it all over again) is still valid.
You proving that Bitmain had time for due diligence, does not prove it was performed.

(BANG - And at that moment of typing, AgentofCoin figured out what was occurring and why this
person was attacking him. It has nothing to do with the actual argument and had to do with
what this argument type actually represents in another place.)




Lawyers.




No one should listen to me, since I clearly don't know what I am talking about.
Everyone should pretend I was never here and go on with their business.

Shoo shoo baby.

If you think my statements are shameless and arrogant, you are blind of the wolves in
sheep's clothing that exist in your camp who are that. Your "big blocker" tribe has been
infiltrated by people who are the definition of the term you are using against me. Those
people discredit your "big blocker" positions and will harm your ultimate goal more than
any of my opinions can ever do.




No, if anyone takes the time to read our whole discussion, I never revise my original belief.
As I stated throughout the discussion prior:

(1) Bitman/Antpool signing the HK agreement does not prove any innocence on their part.
Agreements can be signed in bad faith and that is only determined later in the future.
Your argument was contingent that Bitmain signed in good faith, but that is an unknown.
We can not assume that, because that is an assumption. So it is irrelevant.
As I stated and you quoted earlier: "Jihan signed the HK Agreement doesn't mean anything
of any value in relation to this current ASICBoost issue.". That is true in my argument context.

(2) If Bitmain/Antpool did sign in the HK agreement in good faith, were they willing to "give
up" or "destroy" the investment they made into their chips that allow the possibility of using
ASICBoost? Do you contend that they were going to willingly "brick" that aspect of the chips
for the benefit of the Bitcoin network and its future?

(3) After ASICBoost being on Bitmain/Antpool chips was revealed to exist and could in
theory be performed in a covert manner, if QUESTION 2 was ANSWERED as YES, why did
Bitmain make a public statement saying that ASICBoost should not be rendered obsolete
and that all miners should be able to use ASICBoost and stated they did not wish to harm
the patent holders? That statement would contradict that they would originally willing to
"give up" on ASICBoost when they signed the HK agreement.

(4) So, back to the original argument, Why did Bitmain signed the HK agreement willingly
and with full knowledge that they would be voluntarily breaking their ASICBoosting potential?
My original belief was that they were oblivious that it would break there chips when they signed.
You disagreed with that and then never explained any rational ever again in multitudes of pages.
From that point on, all you did was call me names and attacked my character, as you have
continued to do so now. That is sign of a weak person and argument.

So here we are again. Back to my simple premise:

Will you entertain any theory or elaboration this time?
Or will you keep calling me names?




Yes forum members, read my words and past posts carefully.
Watch me lie to you all, and myself.

Watch how I have tried my best, yet there are times where I am not knowledgeable.
Watch how I wish the network to survive hundreds of years from now in an untrusted way.
Watch how I attempt to argue for beliefs against people I perceive as being malicious.
Watch how I attempt to argue so that decentralization and unregulation will still exist.
Watch how I want scaling to be performed on-chain when we are really ready for it.
Watch how I only show loyalties to the Protocol and Community Consensus.



And I still believe it. If you think I speak lies, that so be it.
My beliefs are not fully my own, there are many who think as I do.
I am one of many. We are Satoshi now.

Let's pick another AgentofCoin Sociopathic classic.

AgentofCoin's Sociopathic Gem #2 - When lies are busted, keep making accusations.

Now in this replay, we see that AgentofCoin insists that, when Jihan signed the HK Agreement in early 2016, it was impossible for Jinha to learn that SegWit would break ASICBoost.


So you show him the SegWit Github commit that proved the miners had 28 days to learn SegWit would break ASICBoost, not "impossible in the timeline of events":


Now at this point, you'd expect a normal person to either reply with counter proofs, or admit he made a mistake, or just stfu, right?

Nope, not our little sociopath, our little sociopath doubles down like his job depends on it.

You're not going to believe his reply:


Nope, I didn't make this shit up, that was his actual reply.

He "merely pointed out that was impossible".

So you merely pointed out that it was.

Suddenly there is 5 paragraphs of "your fault" "your fault" "your fault".

You just have to admire this level of rapid expulsion of bullshit, it's like an art.

I mean who the hell even talks that way?

He just keeps doubling down like no tomorrow, he does this for pages and pages, and he's proud of it.

That's why I've decided to make him famous, this guy deserves a medal.

If you think this is amazing, there is a lot more, you just can't believe the shit that came out of this guy's mouth.

LOL, as if any half decent human being would talk that much bullshit with that shameless and arrogant attitude.


Nope, it is the exact same context, just few pages apart, same thread, same topic, they are in your own words.

This is what I like about sociopaths, they still lie after they're caught on camera and after everyone have seen the replay.

And this wasn't a one time thing. You do this all the time, you made so much shit up you forgot what you even posted a few pages before.

A community need to learn about sociopaths, you sociopaths walk around here thinking you can still keep your reputation after pulling bullshits.

How to Spot a Sociopath:
http://www.wikihow.com/Spot-a-Sociopath

1. Look for a lack of shame.

When a sociopath does something wrong, he or she is likely to accept none of the blame and to blame others instead.

2. See if the person is constantly lying.

Sociopaths are perfectly comfortable going through their lives telling a series of lies. In fact, true sociopaths are uncomfortable when they are telling the truth.

If they are finally caught in a lie, then they will continue to lie and backpedal to cover up the lies.

Some sociopaths will go to great lengths to make you believe their lies. For example, a sociopath may pretend to leave "to go to work" every single day even if that person is unemployed.
 
Many sociopaths are delusional to the point where they believe that their lies are the truth.

Yup, we got a winner, remember, in the mind of a sociopath, it's not a lie if he believes it:

Sociopathology has nothing to do with this.

Your quotes are blatantly taken out of the context of the conversation we had.
You have taken two parts separated by time and discussion, and claim it is revision.
In fact, they are saying the same thing, asked through two different ways, but since
you are stupid you do not understand that.

With majority of the question that I asked, you never give an appropriate response,
if I recall. Most of your answers (with your alt troll account Alex.BTC) were superficial
and required no thought, like a simpleton. Again, you perform the same feats of
arguments that are worthless and do not prove true things, but word play and
word games.

People who are smart know the difference here.




You fool, you never answered it in all the pages we discussed. I had to write out every
word plainly at the end again because you are incapable of understanding anything I was
saying. Its like feeding a baby. Now you again bringing it back up and again look
retarded since you still haven't answer it. You never answered any of my questions.
You continued to deflect everything, ignoring my main argument to only argue stupid
unimportant issues. This is another unimportant issue.

I had questions. You deflected my questions and didn't want to answer. You don't want
answers, you just want people to follow you and take your word. You think miners are
absolute. You seek full control and full obedience. That is not Bitcoin and you will learn
the hard way it seems.

I do not understand why you are picking a fight, unless it is out of pure ego.




Once again, if people take the time to read that part of the discussion, Troll Buster has
taken my statements out of context. At that time, I proved Alex.BTC (the alt of Troll
Buster) that his evidence was wrong with one simple answer. He screwed up the timeline
of events and never acknowledge that aspect and moved on in the discussion. I proved it
and he couldn't man up. Meanwhile, where is the part where I provided evidence to something
that was later proven incorrect and I did not correct myself?

It seems by this current ranting, he has had a hard time dealing with our prior discussions.
Your inability to move on and your insistence to "get me" only proves that I may have valid
points worthy of contemplation, not that they are worthless. If they truly were worthless,
they are not worthy of comment. yet here you are again, rehashing old issues.

Ahh, that attitude again, looks like you're still proud of your lying.
Let's make you famous for it.

Let's pick some AgentofCoin classic, there is just so much to choose from.

AgentofCoin's Sociopathic Gem #1 - Flat out rewrite history then blame you for it.

Here, we can see AgentofCoin is clearing stating the signing of HK Agreement is meaningless. He's cocky as shit about it too:


3 pages later, after all his bullshit were busted, he rewrites history:


So our little sociopath here just changed his story 180 degree after 3 pages.
This isn't even the best part, the best part comes after:


So according to AgentofCoin, it's your fault for not addressing something he just made up.
Something that he stated was meaningless 3 pages ago.

And because he rewrote history, you're now "stuck in your box", "keep going around in circles", "You have never addressed this simple issue".

You think that's all? Nope, this completes the set:


LOL, you can't make this stuff up, very sociopathic, but you have to admire that blatant straight face lying and accusing.

Let's give our little resident sociopath AgentofCoin a round of applause.  

You think this is a one time deal? Nope, there's a lot more, you just have to see to believe.

Let me know if you want more.

Wow, look at that replay. Slow that down to half speed now.
That's a good look'n ass right there, if I could say so myself.

Hey, where did you get this video from? Is this my bathroom?
Did Chinese intelligence give this to you? You sick bastard.

How much do they actually pay for your garbage?

You don't care about Bitcoin, you are malicious.

Your words are worthless, it's proven that you're like the thief that was caught stealing and was captured on camera, everyone already saw the replay, but you'd still lie your ass off and accuse others like a good little sociopath.

Yes, Colombo. You have figured it out, I am a dishonest computer. Beep Boop.
You so smart, now go make another account and accuse someone else of being me.
(Which is really just me accusing me of being me though, but who isn't me, right?)

Anyone can read my past posts and see that I advocate for the most secure Bitcoin Network type.
If I was paid, I would be arguing to centralize the network and get rid of raspberry pis.

That attitude again, looks like AgentofCoin wants everyone to be reminded just how much straight face sociopathic lying he've been doing.

Every reply there were new made up bullshit. Contradicting even your own earlier words.

You are either paid to spread an agenda, or you're someone with a very bad and dishonest character.

Your words are worthless, because your character is worthless.

Actually, both Cuber Krypton and Troll Buster are my alt accounts.
Most anyone reading this is also my alt account.

I control over 100 septillion accounts on the internet and in telecommunication systems
that all talk to each other and any random real human who comes along. Chances are
that if you have conversed with anyone anywhere, it was always likely just me all along.

Remember when you saw that person and mentioned that thing and they didn't know
what you were referring to? Yeah, that's because you were originally talking to me that
time. I then forgot to contact that person after our conversation and pretend to be you,
so that you both had the same full recollection and didn't catch on to what was occurring.

I am Satoshi Nakamoto.
I am Gavin Andresen.
I am Greg Maxwell.
I am Craig Wright.
I am Roger Ver.
I am Jihan Wu.
I am Theymos.
I am Core.
I am Unlimited.
I am the attacker.
I am the defender.
I am almost everyone and everything now.

Anyone who makes arguments or uses phrases that are consistent with mine,
were always me. That is not paranoia, but logical observation and deduction.
I admit I was all those people all along.

Ask yourself, have you ever met in person anyone famous in the bitcoin space,
or has it always been through a computer screen? Ah, yes now you see, it was
green screens all along and none of these people actually exist in physical form.


Beep Boop.

Yeah yeah I am sure he's just your long lost twin brother who just happened to use the exact same words in the exact same manner.

I do not know this person.

I am a newbie in the forum as well as not a technical expert. This is why I initiated discussion. You are free to correct me. I am not trying to teach but learn.

I do not understand your reaction to this simple post.

Cuber Krypton is AgentofCoin's new account.

Exact same mannerism, same unique choice of words, same long and lengthy vomit.

This guy spent years kissing Greg's ass and sucking up to Core, spent a lot of effort smearing big blockers.

Now Core is about to get fired by 90% of the miners, big blockers are going to win, so he've decided to jump ship.

Here he is using a new account, posting things newbies would not know, but pretending to be a complete newbie who doesn't even know how to post a link.

You can change the name but you can't change the smell.

I am not done with you yet.

I have digressed off-topic in another thread which sadly I do not know how to link here, and thus create this one so maybe the discussion can continue to those with interest in it.

Basically, I hypothesize the following in what regards these issues:


Utility:

It is important to understand the concept of Money as Energy for this purpose. Effectively, all Money is backed by Energy. By the energy cost it takes to pursue one endeavor over another. This is how a free market pursues efficiency through pricing. This does not mean electricity. It might mean your time and effort. There is the incentive therefore, to do as much with the least amount of effort possible, in order to increase earnings on the energy expended.

However, less energy will usually also mean an increase of supply because the less energy you are able to expend to do something profitable, the more you will do it. In face of a constant demand, this will arguably make the price tend towards the cost of energy required + tip.

To understand what will be my line of thought you have to abstract yourself from pinning Bitcoin's value to FIAT currency. This is necessary because FIAT has indeed no real value, so everything measured in FIAT ends up being just speculation. And this is not the future I would like for Bitcoin. Keep in mind that we use FIAT not because of Consensus, but because of Coercion by Legal Tender. I will not delve into the History, but I suppose most should be familiar with it.

With this in mind of course, you have to be prepared that a Bitcoin has the value of a Bitcoin which would be the amount of energy expended to get and maintain said Bitcoin. The true value, like all other currencies, would have to be measured in purchasing power. Given a limited supply, it is very easy to understand how it is non inflationary and hopefully, sufficiently divisible.

So effectively, if by Consensus Bitcoin reaches what I expect it could accomplish, it should be a very good Store of Value.

The problem that is posed in the real world, is that because of Legal Tender, we are inclined to measure the Quality of Store of Value vs. USD, or FIAT in general. This is a mistake and it might undermine the whole purpose of the designed system. It might make us feel that we have to make choices which we really shouldn't and end up deciding we want to pursue a value against the USD, when in reality, this was not designed for this purpose. Bitcoin has already more value because it is effectively backed by a real currency. Energy. Proof of Work.

And this happens because of its lesser utility vs. FIAT.

Bitcoin's attributions are not extinguished just as a Store of Value. Bitcoin can also function as Transfer of Value. A frictionless and less costly one. It has all the perfect qualities for it. If on top of this, you have also a good non inflationary store of value, you have already the perfect MONEY with true ownership.

So as much as the debate of what purpose Bitcoin should strive for, I say none. Do not limit it. Bitcoin is an entire system and can fulfill all the attributions of an entire Monetary System. This said, and being in the Real World, the first step should be working towards Universal adoption for increased utility and liquidity.

Centralization and Monopolies:

It is first best to describe what Centralization really is in what concerns Bitcoin. In my opinion, Centralization is pretty decentralized in Bitcoin. There is very few cause for alarm. The system is prepared and expecting this.

My idea is that in a Free Market, such as Bitcoin, efficiency will always reign. So whoever can make the most out of the least amount of resources will thrive. Those that are lagging will fall behind. This should be embraced.

Of course that one has to take into account social responsibilities, but this goes without saying, and it is not a fight for Bitcoin but for the Law. It is obviously not ok to enslave 300 people to turn a windmill in order to mine Bitcoins, but Bitcoin is blind to this. In reality Bitcoin will end up telling us alot about ourselves as Human Beings. Being a Free Market, we have the right and the opportunity to denounce and boycott in a secure and incorruptible manner. So efficiency will go so far as to what shall be socially accepted at any given time.

As for Centralization and Monopolies, I am definitely not worried, because ultimately, it is next to impossible to compromise Bitcoin in any significant manner. Even if you have 100% Market Share. Furthermore, and in response to allinvain, the higher the cost of mining, the higher the expenditure needed for an attacker to significantly compromise the system. Even then, it would require a considerable effort to reach Consensus between all the other relevant participants and most importantly, the cumplicity of the users. Bitcoin will also show us exactly whether we are Sheep or not. I have my thoughts as well as my hopes.

Considering worldwide adoption, I grant that probably not that many people will run full nodes. So effectively, if all Major participants will agree on something, most will just blindly follow.

Honestly, I think Bitcoin is elegantly thought out, impeccably designed, and most of all, truly Democratic. We have a choice. A Real Choice. We can chose to follow the herd, or not. Bitcoin is agnostic.

With FIAT currency, we had Legal Tender instead of Consensus. With Bitcoin Consensus is truly required. If we consent, than who is to blame?

This is why I think no regulation is needed. It is a matter of choice. Do not Tax us all so that Joe can run a Mining Rig in his basement. Which equates to regulation. Efficiency is King. If anyone gets the whole market in a free market, which I sincerely doubt it, it just means they did it better. It is up to the users then to make a choice.

Do not change Proof of Work in order to create inefficiency for Miners. Rather work on increasing usability to the common person under the principles with which Bitcoin was designed.

In direct response to allinvain, as of right now, there is a high cost to entry in a high volatility market. These two do not in fact go well hand in hand. This is why mining companies have to hedge their investments, be it selling hardware, renting hashrate, whatever. The truth is, not alot of people are willing to risk alot of effort with alot of volatility. As soon as real usability (instead of speculation) increases significantly, Bitcoin will be a safer investment bringing more willing miners in to the chain. The legitimacy and capitalization of said miners, would be assured by the high cost of running their operation, which makes the network as I see it more secure.

Most emphasize decentralization, when in fact, it is choice that makes Bitcoin so powerful.