Topic: The Extreme Flaws Of Bitcoin (Read 4933 times)

Oh boy why cant people argue logically?

I am not against ASICS or ASIC makers. I am against centralized mining.


I have no problem with the miners nor the chip makers, the problem is that too much power is in the hands of too few.

And that is precisely because the mining in BTC is too easy. I even wrote a paper on this, how to replace mining with CAPTCHA system:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/sybil-resistant-decentralized-consensus-mechanism-1730728

Forget the fees for transacting in Bitcoin. Do it by supply and demand.

Let a miner get his fee rewards ONLY in the bitcoins he mines. If this isn't enough for him, what will happen? He will quit mining. Then the difficulty will come down so that he will be encouraged to start mining again.

We don't need any stinkin' fees. They only serve to make the whole Bitcoin thing a more centralized thing.

Unfortunately this altcoin is dead but it seems completely asic resistant as the mining is kind of like a captcha and is human mineable only.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/human-minable-coin-1445528

I'm not really into the technical side of Bitcoin at all. But am I wrong to think that when a Bitcoin miner mines some bitcoins, that he gets to keep them? If he keeps them, aren't they enough reward when he cashes them in or buys product with them?

Please explain very briefly, to the point, if this thinking of mine is wrong.

making bitcoin do scrypt in the hopes of averting asic farms is futile.

it would take just a few months to make one and we would be in the position we are now in, in 6 months
the reason no one is bothering with scrypt asics is not technical. its economics.

litecoin doesnt have the same utility as bitcoin. no one cares about it much. so no on cares to make a scrypt asic.
the price of litecoin is crap, being able to spend litecoin is crap. so no on is bothered.

but if bitcoin went over to scrypt. people would be bothered and see the benefit of doing it. so it would happen quickly

Someone smater/better than you came up with asics and is rich now. Too bad for you. Anyways how do you suggest we fix the flaws you pointed out? You're free to make an altcoin anytime you want (or are you just bitching but have literally no abilities to change the code at all?). Either way, you fix it since you're obviously smarter than the people trying to do it right now.

But slowing down the research is he point not to stop it. If you make ASIC chips very expensive to research and manufacture then the centralization will halt.

You can make ASICs harder to manufacture, i.e scrypt ones are more difficult than SHA256 but still... These are not the only flaws, purists wanting to keep 1MB blocks forever or scale to unlimited size or have a band-aid fix of a one time increase are in my opinion deluded, but that's my own opinion. One of my indian clients is struggling to give me daily payments of my articles due to TX fee size, this is becoming a problem for Bitcoin. No one has considered countries which do not have a lot of money, a 20p TX fee is too much for example. Now we are switching to every few days which I am fine with, if this carries on we may move to Litecoin for a more clear blockchain.


Segwit is the best option for those who wish to run full network nodes even though it takes more power, imagine unlimited having 64MB blocks? This wont even come close to visa or mastercards transaction volume but it would make blocks insanely hard to propagate and store.

ASIC resistance is a myth, you can make a dedicated chip for anything if theres enough desire and someone with the cash decides to do it, design it and have a foundry make it for them. You can make it harder and less cost effective (i.e scrypt and cryptonight) A CPU is simply a chip designed to do Multiple tasks, a GPU is like a CPU which can do many SINGLE tasks of one's choice, one at a time, an ASIC is a chip designed for a SINGLE task, no other task can ever be done or adapted for it, but it can do it better than the other two. For example if Bitcoin crashed and no sha256 coin took its place, all the ASICs become a doorstop. This can be designed for any particular task, some ASICs can be used for video decoding if desired for a single algorithm. Cheap MP3 players would have an ASIC to decode the MP3s. Someone designed an ASIC to crack 64 bit DES keys.

There is no such thing as ASIC resistant. Some algorithms try to do this by being memory intensive but that will fail because GPU farms can still provide sizeable hashing power.

bump anyone wants to discuss this?

that's right 

This problem dirrectly affects scaling. If the node count is not incentivized then block size cant be increased.

If you want to play big in bitcoin, either with pure investing or mining, you just have to run enough own nodes in order to ensure the safety of your bitcoins.

If our world will adopt bitcoin in big size, than distribution comes back and node and miner numbers will be sufficient.

This is just the beginning. Take your popcorns and wait. Bigger problems are in the scaling!

One day, an altruist will arise, who will bring balance to the system, through incentivization.

The point is that you guys are a bunch of communists who think that Bitcoin can survive on the altruism of people, without any profit motive at all.


But people dont give a shit about Bitcoin or the full nodes. Most people already prefer using lightweight clients (me included), because they dont get any benefit from running a full node, in fact it would be a big hassle to run a full node. So they get negative profit from it.

People never do things that are losing them money, this is the first rule. And just for the "greater good", nobody will sacrifice their money, voluntarly. Anyone who thinks that people will selflessly sacrifice their money and bandwidth for Bitcoin is naive, brainwashed in communist ideology.


People are selfish, this is the fundamental truth, and people dont care so much about full nodes, that they infact rather use centralized mobile app wallets with no privacy whatsoever and no control over private keys, instead of running a full node and paying for electricity, bandwidth, and consuming all those computer resources.



If people would care for Bitcoin, then you would have atleast a 80%-20% user node distribution, we would have minimum 1,000,000 NODES, instead you have 5000. Haha stupid communists thinking that people will give away money for free!

That is fake altruism.

Just wait until some 3rd party will provide hosting services for those kinds of businesses, sort of like how you can buy amazon hosting or whatever instead of setting up your own server farm in your firm.

The number of nodes will drop drastically, altruism can't sustain an economy, wonder why communism doesn't work, this is why!


Only capitalism is sustainable, and for that you need profit incentive, Bitcoin will fail in the longterm without that. 

Node rewards is a topic I've mentioned many times, and the only solution I could think of was to make it possible for nodes to become miners. Clearly this is not viable. Neither is taking a part of the transaction fee - that would really complicate the processing, and raises the issue of the value of the 1,000th confirmation of a transaction. Some nodes could gain some value from their associated services. Blockchain information sites could run some advertising, and so could wallet recovery and security services. Another area is the operation of sidechains.

What other 3rd party services could be run to earn rewards in return for running a node?

DASH is not decentralized it has those masternodes and crap like that. I dont think its resilient against a huge enemy.

Its seems to be working well for Dash.  Perhaps the number of these nodes can be limited as test.

Actually most nodes have low speed internet connections as well. That is a big drawdown.

Would a hardfork be feasible if the average internet bandwitdth capability of the nodes would increase?

---

Currently 1 of the arguments against the 2mb block increase is the number of nodes that have crappy internet. But if they would have better internet, would the hardfork be feasible?