Topic: Will Bitcoin become centralized sometime in the future? - page 46. (Read 8103 times)

The question is what is centralized? Just 51% of the hash power or something else? because if i remember correctly we had some time with poop having more then the 51%. For small periods this might be ok, but not on the long run. Also no one should have the desire to own this much, as he most likely earning good money with it and a centralization should hurt the price. 

Nope, bitcoin is not going to go that way and not even close. The government has no desire or whatsoever to centralized bitcoin rather they are busy on their project creating a blockchain based fiat virtual currency. This fiat virtual currency is centralized and unlike bitcoins it is controlled by banks and by the government. It is controllable, monitored to combat tax evasion, money laundering and forgery.

Centralization would not allow bitcoin to grow better. The reason is that controlling authority always aims at more and more profit, which affects the common users. To eliminate this bitcoin needs to continue as a decentralized currency. Sometimes the miners gather together as a community and raise increased fee for transaction or something related to it, but they too won't support centralized system. Miners too gets affected with their earning when they become a worker under a head.

Bitcoin mining follows similar rules than mining gold, when the price of gold is low then you need to find places with a high concentration of gold, as gold becomes more expensive then you can begin to mine other places that may not have such a high concentration of gold, with a bitcoin price that high it may be possible for investors to start mining operations in other countries besides China.

Mining pools themselves don't control the network, those who use said mining pools do. This is what is meant by decentralized.

Remember what happened when Ghash.io hit 51%? This is what happens when a single pool gets too close to 51%, the people respond and protect the network.

https://blockchain.info/pools
 

They seem to have got it all figured out and each passing day, they are consolidating on that. Centralization of any type is everything that bitcoin does not stand for and for the worse, quite a significant number of bitcoin enthusiasts are yet to see the pitfall ahead of that.

I've thought so too. The more Bitcoin rises in price, and popularity, the more people it will attract, expanding the whole mining ecosystem and decentralizing Bitcoin even further.

As long as new pools come into the game, and could help spread the hashrate, then we could rest assured that BTC will be even safer than ever by preventing a 51% attack.

Nevertheless, I think that in order to encourage any average Joe to start mining Bitcoin, ASIC manufacturers would have to come up with a solution that will have ease mining setup, and most of all energy efficient to help restore mining at home. That would definitely spread the hashrate even further. Just my thoughts. 

as they are in the control of the large bitcoin mining we can really feel that in the future bitcoin will become centralized and as they are in control I guess they can also determine the identity of every users and can be able to impose a tax to any individuals who are using bitcoin .

looking at the actual numbers.
we have slushpool.. sheep think they are chinese but the pool manager is in thailand.
we have BTCC.. sheep think they are chinese but they have offices and stratums all over the world
we have antpool.. sheep think they are chinese but they have stratums all over the world and farms outside of china.

the actual percentage that are chinese is far far far less than say Ghash.io of 2013.

and out of those 'chinese' numbers you have to realise that they are not colluding.

there are over a billion chinese people. so saying that just because they are chinese is more fictional than saying Ghash was colluding with eligius
there are over a billion chinese people. so saying that just because they are chinese is more fictional than saying Gmaxwell was colluding with hashfast

why would i presume ghash and eligius were tied together... nothing more than both being white.
why would i presume gmaxwell and hashfast were colluding together.. nothing more then being corporate schemers.

but hey if anyone thinks all the chinese are all, yes all >1 billion of them are all in the same boys club.. then those of you that think this must have subscribed to youtube channels that promote that the earth is flat also.

all this "chinese miner" debate is doing is sidetracking the drama and trying to sway peoples gaze away from the real threat.. developer centralization, removing node diversity, and basically handing bitcoin rule creation to a handful of well paid devs that are contracted to make financial profit for the banks

I am not losing any sleep about this, because I think most miners will act in good faith. How would they benefit from the devaluation of

bitcoins due to centralization? Do we really know who are behind the mining pools and if they are really mostly Chinese? As Bitcoin becomes

mainstream, more Western companies will want to get in on the action and we will see more decentralization. I feel strongly about this. The

Chinese have a slight advantage, but other countries will slowly catch up to them. Silicon Valley have not even entered the scene yet. 

Unless there are ways to compete the advantages that chinise miners have such as cheap electricity, good location, ASIC which produced in the same country and lots of investors, i doubt anyone could beat chinise miners in mining.

lol you have no clue the link you provided. you seemed to have read the title but you didnt read it all to understand the context

unlimited is about scaling bitcoin.. LN is about commercializing offchains and pushing people away from bitcoin. open your mind beyond the sheep stories. its like you sheep only have one story to tell. and that story is in the fantasy section.

its core that developed locking funds for x days (like bankers business days) -CLTV
its core that developed revoking payments (like bankers chargebacks) - CSV
its core that have flipped fee's from reactive to exponential (like inflation) - fee average

you need to look passed the spoonfed info handed to you on a plate and actually read, research learn, understand and make an informed and independent opinion. the trouble is when i see you and the other sheep repeat the same crap over and over it begins to sound like a script. a pre-rehersed chorus to a song celebrating blockstreams takeover of bitcoin.

core 2013-2017 is not the same bitcoin ethos of bitcoin-qt 2009-2013, stop deluding yourself that those in core 2017 are the same people of 2009+.. since blockstream entered the arena and sidetracked development via showing bitcoin dev's millions of corporate dollars fanned infront of their faces.. bitcoin has changed. even the 90+ unpaid devs have turned into blockstream interns hoping to impress blockstream with blind allegiance hoping to oneday get part of that fiat cashpot blockstream has.

if your only real devotion to core is the past. then its time to wake up and realise that the past does not have influence over the future. so "trusting" devs based on the past and ignoring what they are doing in the present, and want to do for the future.. is foolish.


atleast take a day and really try to learn things beyond whats been prepared and handed to you on a plate.

1. even upto 8mb blocks are not an issue for the network or home computing.. the chinese firewall limitation is a myth, the datacentre requirement is a myth.. but even knowing 8mb is acceptable. the community think that 2-4mb is more than acceptable and even compromised down to 2mb base block to overturn the fake doomsdays.

anyone arguing about data costs/bloat are late to the party and just shouting out fantasy scripts of yesteryear. every time i see someone say 2mb is bad, i facepalm them that they are soo ill informed and so scripted with their rhetoric that i begin feeling sorry for them

core refused 2mb until they realised for their confidential bloat making fee increasing transactions to have a chance of forcing people offchain they need to bait the community with fake promises of more transactions just so they can push upto 4mb of bloated fat transactions.
but even knowing they had to push the bloat to 4mb with bloated future features of confidential transactions that are over 1kb a tx.. they had to keep legacy (old lean) transactions at a limitation. so they decided to keep base block at 1mb. instead of opening up scaling onchain properly.

2. other implementations want bitcoin to hold lean transactions where increasing the 'weight' actually causes real and positive scaling. not one time boosts that become diminished after the bait has been successful to then switch them over to bloated tx's that dilute the transaction count again.

3. core have funnily proposed to actually intentionally split the network just to force in a soft fork, that alone shows how desperate core are


if you cannot see the truth behind what core is doing. then you are a lost sheep stuck in the wolfs pen thinking the wolves are the sheep dogs to protect and guide you. by the time you see and react to the wolfs teeth, it will be too late for you.

But if 5 mining pools control over 51% and colluded with each other behind the scenes , you can stay happy and clueless.  
Nice little delusion, you got there.  


 

FYI:
BTC has been centralized for over a year.
BTC= Better Trust China

If bitcoin become centralized not only government can easily destroy it but also users anonymity will be gone as more information would be needed
As the miners are mostly Chinese so it could become centralized

What are you talking about? the only Paypal 2.0 is the big blocksize approach, just like the ones proposed by Bitcoin Unlimited. Again, I literally put a link where Roger Ver (guy that is blocking segwit and pushing for whatever gets rid of Bitcoin, in the past was XT, then Classic, then Bitcoin Unlimited and then they will try again with god knows what) says that its ok to turn Bitcoin into Paypal 2.0... what more do you want?

LN is way more decentralized than bitcoin with big block sizes that dont allow for people to run nodes, but even if you are too paranoid about LN, you can still send money directly through the blockchain paying the fee and waiting extra time, because it doesn't come cheap to have world class encryption backed by the biggest decentralized network on earth. There are no magic solutions unfortunately.

No it will not happen if the bitcoin community collectively not help any power to collect the data of the users of bitcoin. Till the time when there will be anonymous wallets and exchanges will be available then bitcoin is a decentralized while in other way it will tend to be centralized which is not favorable.

a simple rule that would avoid mining centralization would be that no pool can submit a block hash solution if it has already solved 2 out of the last 6 blocks. that way a pool will never get more than 33% control, they would automatically get rejected at the 3rd attempt within the last 6 blocks.

seems like a simple rule that solves the 51% attack worry right??

though that can be worked around by a pool running 20 pools and quickly pool hops as soon as it solved 2 blocks.
so for every problem there would be a work around, found.

the problem is not that one pool hits 51% to do something. its the extra fact that a couple separate pools can agree to do something if their manage to control a majority of the blocks that are being solved.

and no matter what solution you find. someone else WILL find a work around. or a way to twist the rule in their favour EG if a rule is created to reject a block if the submitter is submitting too many. that same rule can be abused to deny independence , much like gmaxwell proposes to intentionally reject blocks if they do not collude with core

might be worth you doing some fact checking.

its core that wants to handcuff bitcoin to turn everyone over to LN (paypal2.0). yet those opposing bitcoin want more real permissionless transaction on the mainnet.

its core that while handcuffing bitcoin, they want to bloat transactions with kilobytes of data (confidential payments) where the reality is that these confidential payments will only be confidential for a few days before the 'hidden value' is revealed.

its core that want certain LN (paypal2.0) hub managers having a masterkey to move peoples funds without their consent to use to mix other peoples funds with only a moral judgement that these masterkey holders would put funds back.

thus LN/mimble wont be permissionless, trustless, or even frictionless. those making LN are already putting in stumbling blocks and penalties to charge people extra just for the 'privelidge' of using LN. after all their desire is to repay blockstreams investors so they need to handcuff bitcoin to force people into LN(paypal2.0) to get those penalty fee's to hand back to blockstreams banker investors.

it really makes me laugh pretending blockstream are not involved with the banks..

Im not as concerned about mining centralization as I am about node centralization.

According to experts like Andreas Antonopoulos, we will see a second big decentralization of mining:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-fUosBOu58

It's worth watching the entire talk, but that explains it nicely. We will see, I think things will change in the future and china will stop being a bitcoin mining superpower, they will always have the cheap electricity advantage tho.

In any case, the big danger is the anti Core/Anti Blockstream paid government trolls like Roger Ver trying to turn Bitcoin into Paypal 2.0, in other words a ridiculous hipster token that is easily controlled due its huge blockchain that will be hosted by datacenters instead of random people on their basements.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4irowq/roger_ver_paypal_20_is_an_acceptable_risk_for/

So beware of all those XT/Classic/BU hijack attempts that try to stop the conservative approach that has made software a robust and reliable software. They are also conveniently against segwit which would give us Schnorr sigs, Confidential Transactions, default decentralized coin mixing on the wallets, cool sidechain stuff like mimblewimble... in other word's government's greatest nightmare. XT/Classic/BU with no segwit is way easier to control.

when all the blocks where mined after that i dont think chaina will have  the capibilty they have right now. or if people are thinking about the transaction fee devidation then let me tell you that the compitation level will be highest at that time because the difficulty will remain same and every body can invest a fixed amount on a machine and can mine and get a portion of the total transaction fees