Topic: Why Bitcoin's Decentralization Matters (Read 1287 times)
What is often overlooked is the fact that number of nodes is irrelevant if all nodes are run by the same parties, this is why it's crucial that the nodes can be run on people's personal computers at home, at their offices, and so on. "Specialization" of nodes, would kill Bitcoin as we know it (as a decentralized currency), this is why there is a clear agenda by some people to raise the block size and make Bitcoin nodes end up as centralized as mining is right now.
How will decentralization be altered in a meaningful way if the number of nodes go down from 6000 to 2000?
The best and bad part in the bitcoin is the decentralization. Just if its centralized no more we can see it as a open source.
Also the bad part is there is no strong decision were taken to continue in the growing stages.
Also the bad part is there is no strong decision were taken to continue in the growing stages.
bitrcoin needs to be decentralized otherwise it will have no value at all. if it stays centralized a group can easily make the 51% attack and control the network
NEWSFLASH:9 people control ~90% of the hashrate.
All hang out together, know each other, share interests.
How much more centralized can it possibly get, do you think?
Meh. Like being a lot more dead, I suppose. After a certain threshold, it just don't matter much.
Not really relevant how many rounds they pump into you after the first few.
*BTW, I do hope you're trolling, because if you honestly don't understand how 9 people, who control 90% of the hashrate, whose interests coincide, who meet in a room and shake hands with Bitcoin's developers re. the future of Bitcoin, are all the centralization required... my hands just fall
It's a sliding scale.
so these 9 individual already have the control so there's no need make it officially centralized. after all its already centralized and still got its good value. if it ain't broker, no fixing shall happen then.
This thread is getting quite silly.
Moderation with extreme prejudice in effect until further notice.
Moderation with extreme prejudice in effect until further notice.
bitrcoin needs to be decentralized otherwise it will have no value at all. if it stays centralized a group can easily make the 51% attack and control the network
NEWSFLASH:9 people control ~90% of the hashrate.
All hang out together, know each other, share interests.
How much more centralized can it possibly get, do you think?
Meh. Like being a lot more dead, I suppose. After a certain threshold, it just don't matter much.
Not really relevant how many rounds they pump into you after the first few.
*BTW, I do hope you're trolling, because if you honestly don't understand how 9 people, who control 90% of the hashrate, whose interests coincide, who meet in a room and shake hands with Bitcoin's developers re. the future of Bitcoin, are all the centralization required... my hands just fall
It's a sliding scale.
How much more centralized can it possibly get, do you think?
bitrcoin needs to be decentralized otherwise it will have no value at all. if it stays centralized a group can easily make the 51% attack and control the network
That won't happen. These things are closely monitored.
How so?
bitrcoin needs to be decentralized otherwise it will have no value at all. if it stays centralized a group can easily make the 51% attack and control the network
That won't happen. These things are closely monitored.
bitrcoin needs to be decentralized otherwise it will have no value at all. if it stays centralized a group can easily make the 51% attack and control the network
will 2MB block destroy bitcoin Decentralization?
thats the question, no one is saying we should centralize bitcoin...
thats the question, no one is saying we should centralize bitcoin...
No, 2MB blocks will not destroy bitcoin decentralization. This is baseless fearmongering. It might cost slightly more to run a node, but it will be a marginal increase, pennies on the dollar really.
Forcing everyone onto the Lightning Network which will require centralization by it's very nature, on the other hand....
Nobody’s forcing anybody onto LN. Don’t be retarded.
But that seems to be the intention, by keeping the blocksize artificially capped for the foreseeable future.
There are definitely legitimate concerns on all sides. Whether it be mining, developer, user or node centralisation. We must ensure we maintain an open and accessible network for all.
will 2MB block destroy bitcoin Decentralization?
thats the question, no one is saying we should centralize bitcoin...
thats the question, no one is saying we should centralize bitcoin...
No, 2MB blocks will not destroy bitcoin decentralization. This is baseless fearmongering. It might cost slightly more to run a node, but it will be a marginal increase, pennies on the dollar really.
Forcing everyone onto the Lightning Network which will require centralization by it's very nature, on the other hand....
Nobody’s forcing anybody onto LN. Don’t be retarded.
But that seems to be the intention, by keeping the blocksize artificially capped for the foreseeable future.
I don't believe that's the intention. In fact LN requires bigger blocks afaik.
will 2MB block destroy bitcoin Decentralization?
thats the question, no one is saying we should centralize bitcoin...
thats the question, no one is saying we should centralize bitcoin...
No, 2MB blocks will not destroy bitcoin decentralization. This is baseless fearmongering. It might cost slightly more to run a node, but it will be a marginal increase, pennies on the dollar really.
Forcing everyone onto the Lightning Network which will require centralization by it's very nature, on the other hand....
Nobody’s forcing anybody onto LN. Don’t be retarded.
But that seems to be the intention, by keeping the blocksize artificially capped for the foreseeable future.
will 2MB block destroy bitcoin Decentralization?
thats the question, no one is saying we should centralize bitcoin...
thats the question, no one is saying we should centralize bitcoin...
No, 2MB blocks will not destroy bitcoin decentralization. This is baseless fearmongering. It might cost slightly more to run a node, but it will be a marginal increase, pennies on the dollar really.
Forcing everyone onto the Lightning Network which will require centralization by it's very nature, on the other hand....
Nobody’s forcing anybody onto LN. Don’t be retarded.
will 2MB block destroy bitcoin Decentralization?
thats the question, no one is saying we should centralize bitcoin...
thats the question, no one is saying we should centralize bitcoin...
No, 2MB blocks will not destroy bitcoin decentralization. This is baseless fearmongering. It might cost slightly more to run a node, but it will be a marginal increase, pennies on the dollar really.
Forcing everyone onto the Lightning Network which will require centralization by it's very nature, on the other hand....
will 2MB block destroy bitcoin Decentralization?
thats the question, no one is saying we should centralize bitcoin...
thats the question, no one is saying we should centralize bitcoin...
satoshi didn't removed the 32MB initial limit, because of this reason, so why 2mb pretends to be a major difference in decentralization?
The sucess of bitcoin is relatedto be decentralized otherwise it woulddie several time ago .If we had someone with control over it they would rule the price making it worth 2000dollars today and tomorow 5500,as the reverse ,knowing that these kills any new altcoin.
The US dollar ( and theUK pounds ) is de-centralised. The Government no longer controls its creation, that has been decentralised into the hands of the banks.
No, centralization doesn't just mean the top authority controls something. It means a single authority controls it. In the case of the U.S., that authority is the (quasi-private) Federal Reserve. US dollar creation is still centralized, just not under the federal government.
What, if anything are we to take away from this?
IDK. I don’t sell take home messages. I just thought it was a good read.
This was my favourite part: Transaction censorship is one of the bigger reasons to be seriously concerned with mining centralization (for full nodes). Still, the ability of an individual to purchase hashpower (in the form of readily-available old hardware or in the form of renting it) to mine their otherwise-censored transaction is an option.
Jump to: