Topic: Who needs Satoshi Nakamoto principles? - page 5. (Read 1109 times)

I'd say the same thing I always say.  Write the code, put it on a testnet, let people actually use it and prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it does what you claim.  Until then, no one is seriously going to support a change of algorithm to something unknown and totally untested in the wild.

1) Yes you are right. But the important thing is not that rich people can buy a lot of computers and mine a lot of coins. The important thing is that this does not make it impossible to mine the coins of all other people in the world! But now mining is available only to those who have a lot of money.

2) No. CPUs are being monopolized ALREADY. Moreover, a long time ago - long before the birth of Bitcoin.
It is much more important here that mining will no longer take away the lion's share of all produced electricity from the whole world.

3) You are mistaken ...
Look at what scheme a regular pool works:



Here, ordinary users are forced to look for a Hash in the WHOLE range of nonce values. And users who are connected to the pool search only in the selected segment. Hence the gain in the speed of finding a suitable hash and a greater total reward.

And now see how the pool will work if the POW algorithm is based on my algorithm:



Are you see? Ordinary users search EXACTLY in the same range of values as users who are connected to the pool.
So - there will be no gain from pool.

It requires a lot of money. I have a computer, but I can not afford a miner. And many people in the world too. I do not refuse to have my computer do the calculations all day. He is already on around the clock. For example - torrent works constantly. Distributes ... But I can not connect to mining, because for this I need an expensive ASIC.
For this reason, I consider some people’s statements that “anyone can connect” are hypocritical. Not everyone lives in rich countries and has a large salary. However, the rich will never be sympathetic to the poor, which is why I asked a question. What are we doing? Resigning ourselves to what rules the rich have set for ALL? Or do we make the same rules for everyone ?? Did not Satoshi show in his Whitepaper that he was striving to make the same rules for EVERYONE?

I think that you do not understand what centralization of mining means. It's about the right to issue Bitcoin. This is a matter of economic and social level. Bitcoin was not invented in order for several billionaires to become multi-billionaires. It was invented in order to free ALL MANKIND from the Central Banking System.
Now Bitcoin is like an ordinary Bank: big commissions, long transfers, Big Brother control ... This violates the principles that Satoshi announced in his Whitepaper.
And it needs to be fixed!

It has already happened once and can happen again.

You cannot call it a centralized process as anyone can join the mining process if you are able to spend money to participate in the issue of BTCitcoin and you cannot expect to have the share of the incentive without doing anything and if you want to participate you can still run the full node  .

You should create a time machine to go back and earn that right if not it is a capitalist market and you have to deal with it .

Statistically it can be considered centralized. It all comes down to what that pool is doing with that majority hashrate. If they follow the economical model and don't inflict harm to the network, not much changes.

Only when they abuse their position in the network it becomes a problem. There is too much to gain by just following the rules of the economical model than to fuck up once and be a bad guy for ever. It's not rewarding enough.

Your starting point is wrong, so, all the deductions is wrong as well. If you want to see the hash rate distribution, well, that's public information, so feel free to take a look at:

https://www.blockchain.com/pools

Until you see a pool with more than 51% of the network you can say mining is centralized.

My take on this issue is that those who took mining serious in early days (when Bitcoin can be mined using CPUs) get reward because of putting there trust on something that was struggling to get acceptance. Those who joined mining when Bitcoin got fame and acceptance have to invest huge money to get the benefit.

Ok
What do you say if I tell you that I came up with and developed such a POW algorithm that solves all these problems?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/anti-asicgpufpga-pow-algorithm-new-2019-5207996

And what kind of work was done by those who today contain the largest mining power? Did you buy or mine Bitcoin on time when it wasn’t worth anything? Is that the whole point?
Do not be fooled - this is not a "work". I have 18 years of experience in quarries - I know what real work is!

This is what is at stake. I can show you billions of people who cannot mine Bitcoin. And they never will can, because they do not have money to buy a miner.
Do you think that they do not have the right to do this because they are poor? But many who became rich on Bitcoin in 2011 - 2017 were also once poor. According to your words, it turns out that they did not have the right to mine Bitcoin and become rich.
Therefore, your views are contradictory and not sincere.

If ordinary computers (CPUs) will work in the network and there will be many of them, then they will also perfectly protect the network. But then they will not devour 8% of ALL electricity on Earth!

I kinda feel the same, this world is turning to a centralized world and only people with big money will rule everything. But it isn't end yet, Satoshi has given the idea of decentralization and invented Bitcoin as a little proof of his idea.

Now, it is our job to think how to improve and make the his idea as a complete real product.

So only miners with lots of money can determine Bitcoin's future now...  I always thought FULL Nodes have a say too...    People are obsessed

with the "centralization" of Bitcoin mining and also the Chinese dominance, but other people from other countries are free to compete with them.

Why should the Chinese have all the dominance, when giant corporations in other countries can compete with them on a level playing field. The

developers and manufacturers in Silicon Valley are fast asleep, when there are huge potential to catch up with the Chinese.    Where are all the

GPU Manufacturers (Intel & AMD with their GPU/Mining combo cards?)  

If you want to make the market happy you cannot change the base protocol every now and then and have a blind eye on the investors who spend millions to build farms to support the network from any attack and thereby earning the incentives and none of the algorithm are perfect and hence i do not want to see any change in the algorithm.
 
@OP i have no idea what Satoshi would have done if he knew that ASIC machines will be rule the mining industry and hence i cannot make a comment on that but my concept is that they are helping the network against attacks and that is the important thing in my view.

no i don't. i actually live in a third world country
but that is irrelevant. the problem is that you are  confusing bitcoin with some sort of charity which it is supposed to let anybody earn it for free without any "work".
not to mention that whether or not some poor people can mine bitcoin or not has NOTHING to do with centralization of mining and "satoshi principles" that you are talking about here.... and that was my point.

Do I understand you correctly? Do you think that Bitcoin took place exactly in the form in which it is now. What exactly is it that is valuable and needed right now. Need to rich. And the principles that Satoshi originally declared need to be implemented in another cryptocurrency - in the new Altcoin.
Is that all right?

No. The POS algorithm does not change anything. It is based on the fact that the rich have more opportunities to get coins than the poor. The POS algorithm does not solve this problem. The POS algorithm only reduces energy costs for the extraction of coins. That's all the benefits of it.
But the problem can be solved by using a different POW algorithm. An algorithm that blocks the ability to use any specialized device for mining coins - GPU, ASIC, FPGA ... In this case, everyone will have equal chances. One processor = one vote.

But this is self-deception. Bitcoin is NOT developing. Long time. He stands still. He got stuck in a conservative position. To go a path, you need to go on it. But Bitcoin is not going anywhere. He stands still.

It is true that Satoshi designed Bitcoin like this. And the way he designed it is described in his Whitepaper. But he did not develop it in the same way as was originally described in the project. We can see it now. Satoshi could not see this at the time when Bitcoin was developing. But now we can already see that the POW algorithm that Satoshi proposed contradicts the principles that Satoshi announced in his Whitepaper.
That is, the POW algorithm that Satoshi developed does not perform the functions that are conceived in the Bitcoin project. Now the rule is "Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote" broken. It does not work. And I believe that this should be fixed. We need to make sure that the new POW algorithm meets the initial requirements of the Satoshi project !!!

This is false. PoS coins become expensive the moment people want them. You need a small fortune to operate a masternode, so its again give all the chance to those with the most money, and no chance to those without. In fact, i think mining gives a bit more of a chance to those without money rather than staking coins that can never be afforded (or would be too few to be worth anything).

Unless you bought them already when nobody wanted them. Which is exactly what happened to bitcoin ten years ago. You now hope somehow those worthless coins would get a bit of a price hike if people switched to them, and try in vain to "influence" the market, but the market isn't budging.

I omit entirely the part of Bitcoin moving into PoS, as this is never happening. Go elsewhere if you want to play with PoS. So far it has been a complete failure, and if they have to be inflationary like fiat, then its even less worth.

Large mining operations will cease to be profitable in the coming years, there is nothing changing that. And those people you point your fingers at will either move to other business or cease operating. The remaining miners will be those with free electricity and hobbyists who don't care (or want to warm in winter, etc). This happens because the speed the price of bitcoin prices slows down over time, and does not go up in parallel to profits in mining. You can clearly correlate the historical data and see how every day mining becomes less and less profitable, in spite of more efficient asic technology.

So whatever argument you may have against mining, will solve by itself naturally. As for deflationary money, it works with Austrian economics. Bring another inflationary coin to the table and you are only encouraging the eternal dominance of the flawed Chicago school of eternal debt and bubble pops.

Wow! A much needed discussion is finally starting now! So OP is literally saying the community to move to the POS algorithm and scrap the POW algorithm that miners are using now! I am sure, a lot of big companies will be unhappy after seeing this because these companies have invested millions to set up their mining operations.

But the argument is very valid because only a handful of people/companies are handling the entire mining operations of bitcoin where a commoner like us don't stand a chance at all! So if bitcoin moves to POS, a lot of common people will be happy as they will have better chance to earn bitcoin and make their dream come true!

But wait! What about the rarity of bitcoin? It will be killed if the network moves to POS. Also, if there is a minimum holding requirement given, it will be again controlled by few whales where again commoners won't stand a chance! So this kind of change may become disastrous for the community!

I personally wouldn't want bitcoin to move to a different algorithm because things are now slowly shaping up for bitcoin! It's just a 10 years old currency and still have a long way to go! I believe it's better to maintain the current model because this is how Satoshi designed and developed it!

The real principles of Satoshi are still debatable. Though he imagined bitcoin to be a currency and a decentralized one, it due to its rarity became an valuable asset for rich people to buy and control the supply. The price is actually how low the holders sell rather than the value of the coin.
1 vote a CPU is still an ideal for a decentralized coin.

I completely agree with you. However, what do you think of the principle that is indicated in the topic? Is it necessary to comply with it, or let the entire billionaires who own the largest mining farms carry out the entire issue of cryptocurrencies?



Apparently you live in a very rich country and do not know how people live in those countries where the monthly income is $ 100. How many years will I have to starve to buy a miner? Count ...

Yes. He was an ordinary person, just like me and you. And he was not able to calculate everything during his lifetime, so the Bitcoin protocol is not perfect, and we need to work on it.

But I did not ask about the protocol, I asked about the implementation of a specific principle, which was indicated at the beginning of the topic. After all, this principle was not provided by the Bitcoin protocol. Therefore, I am interested - does the crypto community believe that this principle needs to be implemented?

At the same time, I ask the inhabitants of rich countries to refrain from thinking that they are the only ones in the world. In the world there are many people who live in poor countries, but they are the same participants in the system and have the right not only to use cryptocurrencies, but also to participate in their emission.
I am wrong?

First of all. Satoshi is smart enough to have come up with bitcoin. But let's not forget that Satoshi is, well, human. Just like us! Stop looking at him/her/them as someone who is all-knowing and someone that doesn't make mistakes.

Also, again with the "mining is centralized" argument. Can you expound more on that so we would know how you came up with that conclusion? Sure it became more centralized due to it being harder to mine on personal computers due to ASICs, but calling it "completely centralized" is just pure bullcrap. Have you been listening to Peter Schiff or Nouriel Roubini?