Topic: Would bitcoin be better if all users had the same hashrate? If all users were 1 (Read 325 times)

With the name of Allah Almighty and Assalam o Alaikum to my respected readers I want to say,

      Same hashrate would likely have both positive and negative effects as well like more decentralization and reduced inequality as positive effectives. while reduced security, increased latency, less efficient mining and potential for gaming the system would be negative effects.

 The current system despite its flaws has proven itself relatively secure and efficient one.

best of luck
 
KINGs100

How do you plan to offer a fair play in even in that case? Okay, let's imagine that we all have 1 vote on the network. Is it hard for big companies to create millions and billions of Bitcoin addresses and gain as much vote as they want? No, you also can't change rich getting richer with any system, that's inevitable, that's the power of nature. Strong species eat weak species and survive, no protocol can change that.

Mining is not everything, people have to spend Bitcoins, right? In 2142, kids will be able to run miners and collect Bitcoin transaction fees but to be honest, no one knows what's going to happen in the middle of 22nd century.

Do miners really need to have equal hashrate though. Users are not the miners usually. They can only buy as many coins as they can afford, so in a way, the coin distribution will always be unequal.


Early miners took on the risk that Bitcoin would not be as profitable as it is today, so I guess let them have their cake and eat it too.

To the OP: at any rate, shitcoins cannot solve any of these problems.

The notion of everyone having the same hashrate might not be practical because the network is designed to favor competition and decentralization. Giving everyone equally through nodes would likely lead to other issues like manipulation by people with large amounts of technical knowledge. It would be ideal to see more equality but it is important to consider the trade offs bitcoin's system makes to maintain security and avoid centralization

It's true that the early miners had an advantage but the 98% of btc thats already mined isn't entirely inaccessible. As we move closer to the max supply, mining rewards will shift to transaction fees. The issue with your idea of having everyone mine equally is that it could make mining less competitive and potentially lead to a less secure network. Bitcoin's supply being largely premined might feel unfair, but it's a result of its decentralized, open to anyone nature from the start.

Yeah, it doesn't sit with me in my head either, this concept.
As it was said - it's a utopian set of ideas, and the incentive would be lost if things were the way OP described.

You are very confused about how Bitcoin works. Miners don't "vote" on the next block, they perform work and the reward is for their work. In other words you are saying that people should not work and yet get paid just for "voting"!!!

Another indication that you have no idea how bitcoin works. I doubt you ever held any satoshis, let alone having intentionally burnt any of it. Not to mention that burning coins only makes the burnt coins worthless while it makes the remaining coins that much more valuable

You also can't make the supply go to zero by burning coins because you don't have enough money to even purchase a tiny fraction of the total supply to burn...

Do you know what that means? It means the bitcoin network will not be as strong as it is now. Many people are still encouraged because they join the mining pool but if no mining pool, there could be more decentralized network but most people will not mine and if what you are talking about should be true, people will be using computer to mine or so. Even if it is machines with more computing power, most people will be discouraged because they do not know when the next block will be mined. Also as the blockchain download and maintenance is increasing in gigabyte needed, it is another thing that is discouraging. It is better how it is now, although it answershas its own negative side.

frank I do not want any btc, you can have it all, infact I burnt all my supply on purpose and will keep burning supply until it hits 0 circulating supply and your coin is worthless because there is no supply. However dust, lost passwords, broken hardware and dead people will eventually do this over time then what good is it for humanity? Do you think?
I do not want to "Get rich" in the terms you think. You are way off, I want to enrich my species.
I am not even talking about resetting security, but the fact is security would be more decentralized with non $cam methods and more secure for all of humanity if people could only be 1 accumulation node and 1 vote.
I do not want anything for me, it is for your family and friends kids. You are just to retarded to realize. You do not know what rich is and never will.


The fact is if the bankers wanted to stop bitcoin they would buy all supply and burn it (price does not matter to them retard), but anyone who is not retarded knows it was created by the central banking cartels that fuck kids.

funny part is the current system as is, is not a get rich quick scheme, its a break even to cover costs+ sensible profit over all(balancing the peaks and dips of hashrate, difficulty and competition)

however your idea to reset the security not only is a failed math test where you didnt calculate the economics of, but also would leave the network vulnerable
the only people who would present an idea to reset the system are the greedy that want to get 50btc for 10mins of no effort hoping one day it will make them a millionaire.. meaning you were the one hoping to get rich by being rewarded many btc for little effort

frank you agreed with my in the past on my smurfs.

I do not give a fuck about earning any $.

You do.

YOU ARE A FUCKING LOSER, YOU COULD HAVE 21 MILLION BITCOIN, 1000 HOUSES, ALL OF THE FIAT AND GOLD IN THE WORLD AND I WILL STILL ALWAYS BE RICHER THAN YOU!

Good bye mr $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ RETARD $HIT HEAD

GOOD LUCK EXTORTING THE CREATOR WITH YOUR $HIT

at a hashrate of just 1difficulty (CPU speed)

1 hour of CPU would be 100watt which at a base cost of $0.04/kwh would be $0.004 per hour which, when bitcoin was new with 50btc per blockx6 blocks an hour
that $0.004 would be the underlying security cost of
$0.00001333 per btc in the early years (2009-2012)
$0.00002666 per btc in the mid years (2012-2016)
$0.00005333 per btc in the mid years (2016-2020)
$0.00010666 per btc in the recent years (2020-2024)

this would mean the economics would not be profitable for millions of people to get involved and instead it would just be a few dozen individuals fighting for scraps

also with such low capability of difficulty, it wouldnt be too hard for someone to find a work around forcing the difficulty to need to change to stay honest. and prevent one entity running multiple computer/nodes alone to solve every block

eventually we would end up with the same system we have now..

oh wait, we already did all this in 2009+

..
it is sad when people who dont know better want to break/reset a system hoping their silly idea will get them a greedy win of several bitcoin without effort.. but they dont really think long and hard about their idea's failures and flaws over all.. the only thing they think of is that they cant compete today with just solomining via cpu when everyone else is ASIC mining. they think the world owes them a reset to CPU so they can get a lucky win without effort... selfishly thinking they can get rich promoting such a silly concept

i know alot of penny pinching people who dont want to/cant be bothered to invest in bitcoin via markets or mining, they just want break a system and get a free handout by hoping someone will reset bitcoin to basics so they can win a whole block, and dreaming that winning a block will make them rich for nothing..
.. but they dont realise the reset also resets the market. and the economics, thus their lucky win from running a computer for 10 minutes wont make them rich

Wrong you simply make the voting mechanism based on users, not hash rate. I am surrounded by absolute fucking retards I swear.

Your force all heartbeats and or DNA to a stake of 1.

You take some of the network fee, and put it into 4 pools

1) 1 pool goes back to all verified addresses (self sustaining universal basic income AKA WELFARE)
2) 1 pool goes to voters to vote on where it is spent (taxes, network fee = enforced tax)
3) 1 pool goes to pay people who work network user voted created jobs       (nasa, roads, police)
4) 1 pool pays you for more courses you complete in the decentralized wallet school makes ^ you allowed to do the above jobs.

There is no miners in a fairy distributed supply goofs.

it would be more fair, sure but bitcoin will be weaker i mean if this is to be done nothing will really change aside from bitcoin being more vulnerable miners are incentivized based on how much computational power they can contribute therefore helping the network be more secure i know this is not ideal for those who can't contribute much but for the greater good this is what is the best situation

besides for this to happen, people are going to have to agree and trust one another that they will only use a specific amount of hashrate when mining and stick with what was agreed upon but people would be doubtful and may just dont follow the agreed upon system

Utopia means paradise, I think most people want to live in a Utopia. I know I do.
I am glad you understand fair = good.
tell me who wants to play a game of chess when the opponent has unlimited queens.

The incentive to work is already there otherwise most people would be on welfare. I think most the people on welfare are on it because they know there is not winning the unlimited fiat rat race so they have given up.

Bitcoin is 2012, let us be in 2025 already.

They will not be able to freeze your coins with bitcoin 2.0, and yes with bitcoin they can freeze your coins, by killing you. Like they tried to do with me, but I am a God and they do not even know it.
Actually with my concept of having heartbeats we can tell if you are dead or not, and murders will go down 99.9%, We can tell where are astronauts are and more.

I will leave it at this for now, you are just making b.s. excuses because either 1) you are a central banker or 2) you want your bitcoin to be worth more. If it is the later, you may be a idiot, in fact you would be.
lol bling bling dog $$.
There is no more nor less security in a fairly distributed supply. I would argue there is more because with bitcoin 1 person can be 50% of the hashrate.

When your great great great grand child ask why he did not get to mine initial supply like everyone else, you can explain to him because your generation were complete cunts. It is etched in time, like a blockchain he will see everything. All thoughts and all actions logged forever for all peers to see when you die.

I will tell you one last thing, when the grid goes out and it is a when not a if, When you come to my farm with bitcoin and fiat, eat it, i will enjoy my livestock and fruits, eat your gold as well.

I feel your passion about fairness. Truly. But "one hashrate for all" is a utopian pitch. Competition for incentives is inevitable among miners. That is the essence. It maintains the network under security. You lose that security dynamic if you drive equal mining capability. Those who read this should understand that striving "fair" at all costs might destroy the very thing you are attempting to preserve.

About the "rich get richer" gripe: it's accurate. Wealth concentration is a global problem, and Bitcoin just exposes it. It does not create inequality. Indeed, early adopters have a great advantage, but at least the rules are clear-cut: no hidden money printer, no behind-closed-doors deals. Future generations of children will not be mining much, but they will be utilizing digital assets, the framework, the infrastructures that governments cannot simply seize or devaluate at will

And the thing about the heart. The wallet is schooling? Sure, they are inventive. But they transform Bitcoin into something it is not - something with gatekeeping, identity checks, central monitoring. That kills the trustless nature. People must balance the advantages against the losses. Sure, democracy is good; nevertheless, imposed voting rights in a protocol seem dubious. It's not decentralized at all

Big players follow the same code even if they can accumulate enormous piles. They cannot devalue your holdings over night or freeze your money. That is beautiful. That holds the power. That represents Bitcoin.

Your point is full of head @ss sir.

With bitcoin 1 person can attack the network, with my idea 50% of the users have to combine to do a attack.

You cannot say what satoshi nakamoto wanted, I know if he read my post, if he had any heart, he would agree, but he could be heartless, but meh that is up to him. I can show you what happens in the end with bitcoin and it is not good for satoshi's children.

In the end, killing will be easier to take others hashrate out of the game, rather creating miners yourself. Enjoy your children dieing to eachother sir
It is fine, you and I will be in the afterlife and watch them blow eachother up and I will have a good chuckle at your tears.

Then I show you what it was like my way and ask you to go back and do it the right way, enjoy being re created to learn what is right again. Trust me, you will want to do it my way when you see what your children do to eachother.

You could just do a 1 and done, but you are going to repeat the cycle if you do not fix it in this life. I rather have unlimited cheers than unlimited tears out of yah.

Do you realize that if people have that hashrate then it would be possible to attack the network?. One more thing, how would a person have that kind of hashrate possible?. If that's what you want then it's no longer a decentralized but a democratic system which people have the ability to vote on the network. It defeats the purpose that Satoshi Nakamoto wanted. If someone wants to mine is that all they have to do is to have money and buy mining rig and wait until it mined a block for a reward. You are clearly not open for discussion because you are being aggressive to others and even calling their point bullshit.

We can do it bud, we are smart people.
AI would do most of the coordination.

If they do not put me in jail again and force me to eat my own shit and piss to live, for trying to save their kids.

I see you added most people just want to be users, well no one would force them to vote, but it would give you more coins
I know crazy concept instead of paying people to be our daddys like today and make decisions for us, we get paid to be the daddy.
Yes you pay people to vote for you, rather getting paid to vote yourself on issues.

Lets look at Obama "I am going to remove all the troops from afghanistan when I get in" said it 100x in his campaign.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/world/asia/obama-afghanistan-troops.html and he does the reverse sends more troops in when he got in, and guess who payed for it? and guess who paid his salary?

Even at that, it would be super hard to coordinate and reach consensus. It's even hard to reach consensus on these smaller chains not to talk of Bitcoin where we need everything to move rapidly. Such a requirement won't work.

Most people are not even cut out for that kind of responsibilities and only want to be users.

Also when a user account hits a length(age) of 18 they can be able to vote on the network and account over the length of 150 can be burnt, no more dead voter fraud. It also stops them from creating fake people on welfare and or disability like the abuse to print even more than you can imagine.

Using passive sonar, anyone can sign up and if they try to make 2 accounts it wont work because you know blockchain and AI.
They simply walk to a sign up station where they are given a credit card from a machine and they are good to go, if they lose the card, they can go back and get a dupe.
My drones can detect heartbeats from 5000km and it knows if they are human or animal, unfortunately alot of humans are animals, such as you bittards.

There is no perfect system anywhere and Bitcoin is the closest thing we have to a "fully" decentralized money. And no, we can't get everyone to have the same hash rate. How do we do that and continue to ensure every newly borns will get their own hash rate. Everything you just said sounds simple on paper.

When it comes to designing decentralized networks you'd start to appreciate all we have with Bitcoin even though it's not perfect.

There is no perfection.

I am open to discussion but your point was not a point at all, just as the other guys, total b.s. to keep people being $laves.

It is ok, watch your children eat eachother in the afterlife head @$$

Hell awaits this one I can tell. Serious case of entitled head @$$.

With bitcoin 1 person can be 50% of the nodes, with my concept you are 1 node in however many users use it, so no a single entity would not be able to attack the network, they would need 50% of the network since all users are 1 stake to attack the network, in which case the democracy has spoken.

Infact your point is actually meant for bitcoin not a coin where all users share the same hashrate and or stake.

What stops me from being 50% of the nodes in bitcoin and doing a attack nothing but $, who has unlimited $, good people right? that fuck kids on islands, great idea man, keep using your SHITCOIN CON and just know, just know when me and you are in the after life and we will be, it is a when not a if, I will say I told you so as your ancestors kill eachother as I laugh at you.

Don’t know if your here to learn or hear other people’s views because, it’s not looking like your open to any of that by your trying so hard to be abusive. If that’s your purpose, I don’t see why you should leave the thread open for discussion.
There is an icon just at the left bottom of your screen that allows you to lock the topic if that pleases you. It would give you a window of opportunity to be the only responder to this topic as you wish while, the rest of us could read on if that works for you.

Wow, I'm impressed. Your ideas are so revolutionary, so groundbreaking, that I'm surprised you didn't win a Nobel Prize in Economics yet.

Let me summarize your genius plan....you want to make Bitcoin more fair by giving every user the same hashrate? effectively making the network vulnerable to attacks from a single entity? Brilliant!....

And, of course who needs security and decentralization when you can have a direct digital democracy where every user gets one vote? Listen if you want to create a cryptocurrency that's vulnerable to attacks, centralized, be my guest. Call it "ShitCoin" or something. But leave Bitcoin out of it. nobody  needs your innovative ideas ruining Bitcoins decentralized network.

So, go ahead and create your own shit coin with perfect democracy. I'm sure it'll be a huge success.

So you rather have 1 guy or a couple guys create all the supply rather everybody at the same rate, seems like you have a serious case of entitled head a$$.

Infact my idea would stop the double spend or someone controlling 50% of the network completely, and if you really think about long long term, at the end, 1 guy will win with the current system.

Now I’m not all that solid on the technical aspects of Bitcoin and the Bitcoin network but, the little I’ve been on the technical discussion board made me to understand that, having more than one nodes on the network adds a lot more credibility on the network and makes it impossible for anyone to double spend.
Hashrate which is more about the computation power wouldn’t work so well as regards speed and efficiency if all users have one. It kind of increases the difficulty from the way I view it as, it reduces the speed at which, Bitcoin would be mined in the sense that, miners are limited to just 1 for computational power when you could have more.

Of course it would be better.

You guys are just idiots that will watch your great great grandchildren kill eachother  

Enjoy your temporal greed and btw, you bald because of greed. I have a full lion mane and always will because I do not have my head up my a$$.

The mark of the beast is on the forehead, that is why you bald there. Beast Coin out.

Would bitcoin be better if all users had the same hashrate? Do not the rich just get richer with this system we have? and eventually 1 person will win.
If all users were 1 vote on the network? (direct digital democracy)


I think if we all had the same hashrate it would be more fair.
The supply is 98% premined to anyone born today, why do they not get to mine?
In 2142 it will all be mined and kids then wont even be able to mine, but 98% premine today? WTF? is it ETH?


I think it would be better if we were all 1 node on the network, rather a few guys or even 1 guy being able to be 50% of the nodes.
This can be done using passive sonar to scan WILLING users heartbeats.

I think it would be better with a built in school system in a wallet that gives credits for people do courses and paying people like gov jobs that they finish, like real life bounties.

I know my idea is so 2200, but bitcoin is not it boys, the central bankers can buy all the supply, you are still $laves.