The single flaw in bitcoin | Bitcointalksearch.org

MrBig

sr. member

Activity: 369

Merit: 250

Quote from: CoinHoarder on September 21, 2014, 09:33:02 AM

I agree with you OP but some people are in denial about the inevitability of Bitcoin's centralization. They will be their own undoing IMO, but time will tell. One thing I don't agree with you though is that this is the only flaw Bitcoin has. There are many flaws, being stubborn is one of them, as you will see momentarily as the Bitcoin zealots show up to put lipstick on their pig. It is sad that they are more worried about applying make up over the problems than fixing the issues. I was once a Bitcoin supporter, but I can't stand the stubbornness in the community anymore. I stick around here in hopes that they can come to a realization of reality.

You're not the only one man. I remember when you supported BTC and wanted to make a physical coin. Things have really started to go downhill around here and for BTC this year.

Eisenhower34

legendary

Activity: 906

Merit: 1002

Quote from: snappa4ever on September 21, 2014, 10:17:59 PM

Quote from: Eisenhower34 on September 21, 2014, 02:21:21 PM

Quote from: GhanaGamboy on September 21, 2014, 09:05:42 AM

Quote from: snobbus on September 21, 2014, 08:41:07 AM

Yes, a currency issued by a centralized entity is very similar to the bank's internal systems, which a centralized bitcoin would be as well, do you not agree?

Bitcoin mining is somehow centralized many years since people started poiting their miners to pools, but Bitcoin itselves cannot be centralized, Bitcoin is based on trustless public ledger, very different from currency issued by a centralized entity where the ledger is not public and obviously transactions can only be processed by centralized entity, because noone else have access to the ledger.

Pool mining does not equal centralized mining. The cost to switch pools is near zero and it is extremely easy to redirect a miner's hashpower to another pool. If/when a pool starts to act in a way that the miner does not agree with the owner of the miner needs to do little more then a few clicks to change pools.

As long as the above remains true, pooled mining will not be a threat to decentralization.

I agree with this. As long as miners have control over their equipment centralized mining will not be an issue. The only potential problem is cloud mining as miners are not able to change pools effectively giving the cloud mining company control over the hashpower

Today pool mining really does not make up a very large percentage of total mining capacity, so I don't think it is that big of a threat. Also most cloud mining services have 'private' pools that only the hashpower that is sold by the cloud mining company can mine on. As long as the cloud mining company continues to sell cloud mining power they will have an incentive to act in honest ways as if they are not honest then people will not want to continue to purchase mining power from them.

opossum

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: RodeoX on October 23, 2014, 02:08:43 PM

Why are all bitcoins fatal flaws discovered by brand new users?
If you are concerned about centralization then why are you not mining? You are likely not even running a full node. You are allowing any centralization to take place. In the bitcoin system this is the only way for it to happen.

By the way, what we are calling centralization is not actually centralization. Miners are decentralized and spread around the world. If the concern is a 51% attack then you might want to ask yourself "why would anyone do that?" It would cost millions (a billion?) and you wold receive nothing of value for your efforts. People who have millions of dollars did not get rich writing checks. It is illogical to launch such an attack.

I think that the "flaws" that are "found" in bitcoin are really not flaws, but rather, something that people that are trying to promote alternative currencies will try to pass off as a flaw. This seems to be especially true for PoS algo-type shitcoins.

One thing that your point failed to mention is that the reason that mining is (closer to being) centralized (then some people want) is because of pools, however pools are merely agents that can be "fired" on a moments notice if they were to act in a way that the miners do not like. I am almost guarantee you that a miner who has several thousand dollars worth of equipment mining on a specific pool will monitor the pool on, at least a daily basis to check for any signs of the pool acting improperly and upon discovery of such evidence would pull their equipment from such pool and redirect such mining power to a backup pool.

amaclin

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1019

Quote

I don't think you understand how bitcoin works. There is a link in my sig to the whitepaper. It will answer many of the questions you are confused about.

I think you do not understand the market price of switched off asic Grin

This is what Satoshi Nakamoto did not tell you in his papers

Update: for example https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/about-50ths-offline-youre-welcome-fellow-miners-813649

RodeoX

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1147

The revolution will be monetized!

Quote from: amaclin on October 23, 2014, 02:24:18 PM

Quote

Why are all bitcoins fatal flaws discovered by brand new users?

Because we have clear view.

Quote

If you are concerned about centralization then why are you not mining?

Because we do not like any ponzi

Quote

You are likely not even running a full node.

Because of no reason for us to help early adopters to take profits

Quote

You are allowing any centralization to take place.

No. It is your problem. Not our problem.

Quote

By the way, what we are calling centralization is not actually centralization. Miners are decentralized and spread around the world.

It does not matter where sha256 is calculated. The attacker should have control how the block is assembled.

Quote

If the concern is a 51% attack then you might want to ask yourself "why would anyone do that?"

The right question we ask is: how to avoid any problems to our pockets?

Quote

It would cost millions (a billion?) and you wold receive nothing of value for your efforts.

It would cost nothing. You are blind if you do not see how to do it without expenses.

Quote

People who have millions of dollars did not get rich writing checks. It is illogical to launch such an attack.

You will see it very soon. Trust me.

I don't think you understand how bitcoin works. There is a link in my sig to the whitepaper. It will answer many of the questions you are confused about.

amaclin

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1019

Quote

Why are all bitcoins fatal flaws discovered by brand new users?

Because we have clear view.

Quote

If you are concerned about centralization then why are you not mining?

Because we do not like any ponzi

Quote

You are likely not even running a full node.

Because of no reason for us to help early adopters to take profits

Quote

You are allowing any centralization to take place.

No. It is your problem. Not our problem.

Quote

By the way, what we are calling centralization is not actually centralization. Miners are decentralized and spread around the world.

It does not matter where sha256 is calculated. The attacker should have control how the block is assembled.

Quote

If the concern is a 51% attack then you might want to ask yourself "why would anyone do that?"

The right question we ask is: how to avoid any problems to our pockets?

Quote

It would cost millions (a billion?) and you wold receive nothing of value for your efforts.

It would cost nothing. You are blind if you do not see how to do it without expenses.

Quote

People who have millions of dollars did not get rich writing checks. It is illogical to launch such an attack.

You will see it very soon. Trust me.

RodeoX

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1147

The revolution will be monetized!

Why are all bitcoins fatal flaws discovered by brand new users?
If you are concerned about centralization then why are you not mining? You are likely not even running a full node. You are allowing any centralization to take place. In the bitcoin system this is the only way for it to happen.

By the way, what we are calling centralization is not actually centralization. Miners are decentralized and spread around the world. If the concern is a 51% attack then you might want to ask yourself "why would anyone do that?" It would cost millions (a billion?) and you wold receive nothing of value for your efforts. People who have millions of dollars did not get rich writing checks. It is illogical to launch such an attack.

amaclin

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1019

Quote

From a technological perspective its not a problem but from an economics perspective it is.

There will be no perspectives at all after 51% attack to bitcoin.

hamiltino

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 500

P2P The Planet!

Quote from: amaclin on October 23, 2014, 01:45:20 PM

Quote

The distribution of new bitcoins is becoming centralized

This is not a problem.

From a technological perspective its not a problem but from an economics perspective it is.

amaclin

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1019

Quote

The distribution of new bitcoins is becoming centralized

This is not a problem.

Quote

and the risk of a 51%+ attack is increasing

This is.
And we can do nothing with it. Sooner or later it will happen

hamiltino

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 500

P2P The Planet!

I've been thinking about this. A couple years back i remember it was profitable to mine bitcoins with my graphics card, that meant it was very decentralized as anyone could mine bitcoins profitably. Then ASIC's came along, centralizing the mining to large scale mining farms. The competition has become so high that only a few farms are left.

Illustation example of what is going on

2009 - 2012 2013 - 2016 2017
100000 miners > 10000 miners > 100 miners

So what is the problem with this? The distribution of new bitcoins is becoming centralized and the risk of a 51%+ attack is increasing.

I just read Gavin Andersons writeup on centralized mining and i've noticed he does not take into consideration the one sided distribution of bitcoin which is a HUGE deal.

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/06/centralized-mining/

jangandusta

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

well, i'll watch this one, cuz i don't understand at all

snappa4ever

sr. member

Activity: 374

Merit: 250

Quote from: Eisenhower34 on September 21, 2014, 02:21:21 PM

Quote from: GhanaGamboy on September 21, 2014, 09:05:42 AM

Quote from: snobbus on September 21, 2014, 08:41:07 AM

Yes, a currency issued by a centralized entity is very similar to the bank's internal systems, which a centralized bitcoin would be as well, do you not agree?

Bitcoin mining is somehow centralized many years since people started poiting their miners to pools, but Bitcoin itselves cannot be centralized, Bitcoin is based on trustless public ledger, very different from currency issued by a centralized entity where the ledger is not public and obviously transactions can only be processed by centralized entity, because noone else have access to the ledger.

Pool mining does not equal centralized mining. The cost to switch pools is near zero and it is extremely easy to redirect a miner's hashpower to another pool. If/when a pool starts to act in a way that the miner does not agree with the owner of the miner needs to do little more then a few clicks to change pools.

As long as the above remains true, pooled mining will not be a threat to decentralization.

I agree with this. As long as miners have control over their equipment centralized mining will not be an issue. The only potential problem is cloud mining as miners are not able to change pools effectively giving the cloud mining company control over the hashpower

wasserman99

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: CoinHoarder on September 21, 2014, 09:33:02 AM

I agree with you OP but some people are in denial about the inevitability of Bitcoin's centralization. They will be their own undoing IMO, but time will tell. One thing I don't agree with you though is that this is the only flaw Bitcoin has. There are many flaws, being stubborn is one of them, as you will see momentarily as the Bitcoin zealots show up to put lipstick on their pig. It is sad that they are more worried about applying make up over the problems than fixing the issues. I was once a Bitcoin supporter, but I can't stand the stubbornness in the community anymore. I stick around here in hopes that they can come to a realization of reality.

Bitcoin is not stubborn, it has a set of rules that it needs to follow (the protocol) which it does.

Centralization is not an issue because miners can change pools very easily, and hashpower is essentially fungible.

I have seen you post in several threads and all that you do is troll bitcoin to promote your scamcoins

slaveforanunnak1

hero member

Activity: 743

Merit: 502

here we go again.... sigh.

CoinHoarder

legendary

Activity: 1484

Merit: 1026

In Cryptocoins I Trust

Quote from: Kprawn on September 21, 2014, 02:14:06 PM

The difficulty you posted, will show a increase, because the combined network power increased. Wink

Once the network power decrease, when the big companies leave, as in his hypothetical scenario, the difficulty will decrease. {Adapt to the change}

Mining will be profitable for ASIC companies long after consumers. Due to economies of scale, they can build ASICs at a fraction of the price they sell them for, and thus expand their farms for very little costs. This idea that people (consumers) will keep mining even when incredibly unprofitable is crazy... What is the point when you can buy more Bitcoins with $100 than you can mine with $100 in electricity plus equipment costs? The ASIC manufacturers and huge mines are setting up in places with super cheap power and cheap operating expenses (cold places using nature to cool equipment), the average consumer cannot afford to do this.

Eisenhower34

legendary

Activity: 906

Merit: 1002

Quote from: GhanaGamboy on September 21, 2014, 09:05:42 AM

Quote from: snobbus on September 21, 2014, 08:41:07 AM

Yes, a currency issued by a centralized entity is very similar to the bank's internal systems, which a centralized bitcoin would be as well, do you not agree?

Bitcoin mining is somehow centralized many years since people started poiting their miners to pools, but Bitcoin itselves cannot be centralized, Bitcoin is based on trustless public ledger, very different from currency issued by a centralized entity where the ledger is not public and obviously transactions can only be processed by centralized entity, because noone else have access to the ledger.

Pool mining does not equal centralized mining. The cost to switch pools is near zero and it is extremely easy to redirect a miner's hashpower to another pool. If/when a pool starts to act in a way that the miner does not agree with the owner of the miner needs to do little more then a few clicks to change pools.

As long as the above remains true, pooled mining will not be a threat to decentralization.

Kprawn

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1074

The difficulty you posted, will show a increase, because the combined network power increased. Wink

Once the network power decrease, when the big companies leave, as in his hypothetical scenario, the difficulty will decrease. {Adapt to the change}

CoinHoarder

legendary

Activity: 1484

Merit: 1026

In Cryptocoins I Trust

Quote from: Kprawn on September 21, 2014, 10:33:38 AM

Quote from: CoinHoarder on September 21, 2014, 10:19:39 AM

Quote from: Kprawn on September 21, 2014, 10:15:30 AM

Even if only 2 people in the world, run a mining rig, will it still be seen as decentralized.

No... Just no.

Why not, it's not a single "body" influencing the situation, if 2 or more people mine.

Quote from: Kprawn on September 21, 2014, 10:15:30 AM

The way that the protocol are written, encourage more people to mine.

How can you convince them if it is unprofitable, as it has been since ASICs hit these scene?

The difficulty decrease, once the protocol adjust to the new time it takes to solve a block, does it not?

.... What difficulty decrease? http://bitcoindifficulty.com/

Kprawn

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1074

Quote from: CoinHoarder on September 21, 2014, 10:19:39 AM

Quote from: Kprawn on September 21, 2014, 10:15:30 AM

Even if only 2 people in the world, run a mining rig, will it still be seen as decentralized.

No... Just no.

Why not, it's not a single "body" influencing the situation, if 2 or more people mine.

Quote from: Kprawn on September 21, 2014, 10:15:30 AM

The way that the protocol are written, encourage more people to mine.

How can you convince them if it is unprofitable, as it has been since ASICs hit these scene?

The difficulty decrease, once the protocol adjust to the new time it takes to solve a block, does it not?

Topic: The single flaw in bitcoin (Read 3901 times)