Topic: Will Bitcoin become centralized sometime in the future? - page 47. (Read 8114 times)
I dont really care at the minute where in the world the mining is done as long as no 1 miner has anywhere near 51% of the hash power. Like has been said before if mining was centralising in Sweden it would probably never be mentioned.
As Bitcoin mining is partially controlled by Chinese miners, I have a feeling that sometime in the near future, Bitcoin can become centralized if no solution against this is proposed.
If BTC could manage to bring a solution towards mining centralization by preventing mining pools with the most hashrate to effectively gain control of the network, then it would aim to become more decentralized over the years.
As mining difficulty increases and new ASIC hardware gets developed, it would make it less possible for any average user to mine Bitcoin, thus making it more centralized each day.
Nevertheless, I would like to know your opinion about this, as if BTC becomes centralized, it might cause it to decrease in value, and most of all, violate the principles that it was created for.
It would still remain as it should be and im strongly believing on that thing because no matter how difficulty increases and miners would be more developed or upgraded it doest really mean that it will make bitcoin to be decentralized and we all know that bitcoin cant be hardly controlled by any 3rd party.If they would plan to control or centralized it then they will have a hard time on cracking it for sure. If BTC could manage to bring a solution towards mining centralization by preventing mining pools with the most hashrate to effectively gain control of the network, then it would aim to become more decentralized over the years.
As mining difficulty increases and new ASIC hardware gets developed, it would make it less possible for any average user to mine Bitcoin, thus making it more centralized each day.
Nevertheless, I would like to know your opinion about this, as if BTC becomes centralized, it might cause it to decrease in value, and most of all, violate the principles that it was created for.
funny thing is its the blockstream paid devs that are wanting centralization. mainly to push bitcoin down a rabbit hole to commercialise it and repay their investors.
Gmaxwell proposed anyone not core should ForK off
gmaxwell proposed auto rejecting blocks simply because those blocks dont vote for core
kind of funny how gmaxwell wants to cause an intentional split just to activate a soft fork.. very counter intuitive
as also shown above, gmaxwell is so desperate and depraved he calls anything not core an altcoin... makes me laugh that he stoops that low to confuse his sheep
it is actually the blockstream paid devs and their interns that have been on a campaign to centralize the blockchain, telling lies, twisting the truth and spreading rumours to try reigning their sheep into the wolfs den
as for the impending replies of the sheep.. distribution vs decentralization are two very different things.
yes bitcoin is distributed. but if they are all blindly following the wishes of just a few devs.. then distribution becomes meaningless because independence is lost
Gmaxwell proposed anyone not core should ForK off
What you are describing is what I and others call a bilaterial hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.
I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.
I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.
gmaxwell proposed auto rejecting blocks simply because those blocks dont vote for core
If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90% (e.g. lets just imagine some altcoin publicly raised money to block an important improvement to Bitcoin) then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.
kind of funny how gmaxwell wants to cause an intentional split just to activate a soft fork.. very counter intuitive
as also shown above, gmaxwell is so desperate and depraved he calls anything not core an altcoin... makes me laugh that he stoops that low to confuse his sheep
it is actually the blockstream paid devs and their interns that have been on a campaign to centralize the blockchain, telling lies, twisting the truth and spreading rumours to try reigning their sheep into the wolfs den
as for the impending replies of the sheep.. distribution vs decentralization are two very different things.
yes bitcoin is distributed. but if they are all blindly following the wishes of just a few devs.. then distribution becomes meaningless because independence is lost
I hope that it can be happen that bitcoin will be centralized
Nevertheless, I would like to know your opinion about this, as if BTC becomes centralized, it might cause it to decrease in value, and most of all, violate the principles that it was created for.
I think it can reduce the value because its centralized and i think the people who are using bitcoin they are want privacy and become anonymous.. if bitcoin will become centralized i think more company will ask for our real identity.. this is just what i thoughts.
Nevertheless, I would like to know your opinion about this, as if BTC becomes centralized, it might cause it to decrease in value, and most of all, violate the principles that it was created for.
3D printing of ASIC processors will be what flips that game.
The trolls will wade into this thread quickly, saying: "development is centralised, let's run multiple conflicting rulesets on the network!", but of course, development has always been centralised to however many people have the private keys to commit code to the github.com/bitcoin repo.
The ability to create a fork away from github.com/bitcoin should only be used if those developers start behaving in bad faith. Only the would-be usurper devs (XT, Classic et al) have demonstrated bad faith, by proposing (likely deliberately) stupid ideas to "improve" Bitcoin that would in fact cripple it.
The trolls will wade into this thread quickly, saying: "development is centralised, let's run multiple conflicting rulesets on the network!", but of course, development has always been centralised to however many people have the private keys to commit code to the github.com/bitcoin repo.
The ability to create a fork away from github.com/bitcoin should only be used if those developers start behaving in bad faith. Only the would-be usurper devs (XT, Classic et al) have demonstrated bad faith, by proposing (likely deliberately) stupid ideas to "improve" Bitcoin that would in fact cripple it.
i think it already is centralized with the possibility of a decentralized out if that centralization becomes too obvious. bitcoin could use a genuine scare to reinforce what it should all be about.
To ensure some sort of centralisation never happen, the best way is still to spread the hashrate concentration to multiple new pools. I guess since there is more and more people coming into the game, and a lot more will come I think because of the price rise, actions will never have to be taken.
As Bitcoin mining is partially controlled by Chinese miners, I have a feeling that sometime in the near future, Bitcoin can become centralized if no solution against this is proposed.
If BTC could manage to bring a solution towards mining centralization by preventing mining pools with the most hashrate to effectively gain control of the network, then it would aim to become more decentralized over the years.
As mining difficulty increases and new ASIC hardware gets developed, it would make it less possible for any average user to mine Bitcoin, thus making it more centralized each day.
Nevertheless, I would like to know your opinion about this, as if BTC becomes centralized, it might cause it to decrease in value, and most of all, violate the principles that it was created for.
If BTC could manage to bring a solution towards mining centralization by preventing mining pools with the most hashrate to effectively gain control of the network, then it would aim to become more decentralized over the years.
As mining difficulty increases and new ASIC hardware gets developed, it would make it less possible for any average user to mine Bitcoin, thus making it more centralized each day.
Nevertheless, I would like to know your opinion about this, as if BTC becomes centralized, it might cause it to decrease in value, and most of all, violate the principles that it was created for.
Jump to: