4 ms·

Fork and then what? Unless you have formidable percentage of the total hashing power you're dead in the water. But if you do have it and with this bitcoin cent

Fork and then what? Unless you have formidable percentage of the total hashing power you're dead in the water. But if you do have it and with this bitcoin centralization it's not physically hard to control then you can threaten the rest to fork if they don't comply with your "direction".

hudon 10y ago
This is conjecture on my part but to your point: some have suggested that the minority fork change its proof-of-work algorithm, to prevent attacks from the majority fork. I would also point out that miners are heavily incentivized to keep the network valuable. If 80% of the miners got together and decided that transactions need a signature from the PBoC or an output to the IRS before being valid, everyone would sell, the price would plummet, and the miners will be left with a bunch of inefficient heating equipment and no more revenue. Miners need to stay engaged with the users if they are to force any kind of change onto the network, lest the rewards they get from mining turn to dust.
- ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
  sure, there are things that are obviously "bad" for all of the miners. but the reality isn't as cut-and-dry - there are things that are up for a debate - but with this centralization there is no debate, or rather the debate is short :) which is why bitcoin xl didn't happen for example. not sure what your point is - you saying there's no centralization? it's not as bad as it seems? something else?
  - hudon 10y ago
    I've just been refuting your original statements about how decentralized it is and about how miners get to "impose their will" arbitrarily. You seem to think that tomorrow 3 miners can come out and decide to increase the coinbase reward back to 50 btc and there would be no consequence. I'm saying the system doesn't work like that and that the level of decentralization is adequate.
    - ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
      If these "3 miners" are controlling the majority of the hashing power - which isn't too far fetched from how the things really are - we're literally talking like 10 physical individuals here - then yes, they get to tell the others what to do. This already happened in the past and looks like Ver and AntPool are trying to make it happen again. And they know full well that it's not that hard to do: >>> "Ver says he plans to step up lobbying efforts, especially in China which is home to the majority of bitcoin mining." and again this lobbying^^ will only need to be applied to a few concrete individuals again because of the extreme level of centralization of the hashing power.
      - hudon 10y ago
        I see what you're saying, but you originally said that miners get to "impose their will". If Bitcoin miners have announced support for Bitcoin Unlimited and the market price hasn't crashed in response, what does that tell us?
        ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
        you tell me since I don't see how this proves/disproves the "bitcoin is centralized af" statement...

hudon 10y ago

This is conjecture on my part but to your point: some have suggested that the minority fork change its proof-of-work algorithm, to prevent attacks from the majority fork. I would also point out that miners are heavily incentivized to keep the network valuable. If 80% of the miners got together and decided that transactions need a signature from the PBoC or an output to the IRS before being valid, everyone would sell, the price would plummet, and the miners will be left with a bunch of inefficient heating equipment and no more revenue. Miners need to stay engaged with the users if they are to force any kind of change onto the network, lest the rewards they get from mining turn to dust.

ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
sure, there are things that are obviously "bad" for all of the miners. but the reality isn't as cut-and-dry - there are things that are up for a debate - but with this centralization there is no debate, or rather the debate is short :) which is why bitcoin xl didn't happen for example. not sure what your point is - you saying there's no centralization? it's not as bad as it seems? something else?
- hudon 10y ago
  I've just been refuting your original statements about how decentralized it is and about how miners get to "impose their will" arbitrarily. You seem to think that tomorrow 3 miners can come out and decide to increase the coinbase reward back to 50 btc and there would be no consequence. I'm saying the system doesn't work like that and that the level of decentralization is adequate.
  - ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
    If these "3 miners" are controlling the majority of the hashing power - which isn't too far fetched from how the things really are - we're literally talking like 10 physical individuals here - then yes, they get to tell the others what to do. This already happened in the past and looks like Ver and AntPool are trying to make it happen again. And they know full well that it's not that hard to do: >>> "Ver says he plans to step up lobbying efforts, especially in China which is home to the majority of bitcoin mining." and again this lobbying^^ will only need to be applied to a few concrete individuals again because of the extreme level of centralization of the hashing power.
    - hudon 10y ago
      I see what you're saying, but you originally said that miners get to "impose their will". If Bitcoin miners have announced support for Bitcoin Unlimited and the market price hasn't crashed in response, what does that tell us?
      - ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
        you tell me since I don't see how this proves/disproves the "bitcoin is centralized af" statement...