3 ms·

It is the architecturally decentralized nature of bitcoin that you mentions, that can make it become more and more decentralized over time. You say it is not s

by nfin 7y ago

It is the architecturally decentralized nature of bitcoin that you mentions, that can make it become more and more decentralized over time. You say it is not so different from a centralized system that has replicas in multiple data centers. - if we speak about bitcoin nodes: don't forget that centralized systems can be shut off very quickly by governements - if we speak about miners: new mining pool software is just being developed (and some of if finalized), that takes away power from pools, and gives it to the many small miners: https://medium.com/hackernoon/betterhash-decentralizing-bitcoin-mining-with-new-hashing-protocols-291de178e3e0 https://medium.com/hackernoon/betterhash-decentralizing-bitc... and https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/ci2daj/making_mining_more_decentralized_new_mining_stack/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/ci2daj/making_mini...

kerkeslager 7y ago
I think the point cryptica is making is that there is only one, central blockchain (logical centralization). This has a few centralizing effects on political centralization which is what most users probably care about: 1. Governments need only to track one blockchain to track every BTC transaction. Attempts to deal with this mainly entail coin tumbling, which involves giving your coins to a centralized trusted entity. Larger tumblers are more effective, creating an incentive for further centralization. 2. The central blockchain is a performance bottleneck to event throughput. Attempts to deal with this mostly have to do with federation, i.e. forcing people to transact through another entity (usually a company you pay fees to) if they want faster transactions. Federation is much closer to centralized on the centralized/decentralized spectrum. Usually companies respect regulation from centralized government (meaning a government could force them to not process your transactions) increasing centralization further. And historically, federation happens unevenly, i.e. a large number of email users federating under GMail, which creates further centralization. 3. Mining competition has a very high entry cost because the minimum investment for entry is very high. The solution to this is pools under a centralized pool manager who typically collects fees and may or may not collect data on pool members.

by nfin 7y ago

kerkeslager 7y ago

I think the point cryptica is making is that there is only one, central blockchain (logical centralization). This has a few centralizing effects on political centralization which is what most users probably care about: 1. Governments need only to track one blockchain to track every BTC transaction. Attempts to deal with this mainly entail coin tumbling, which involves giving your coins to a centralized trusted entity. Larger tumblers are more effective, creating an incentive for further centralization. 2. The central blockchain is a performance bottleneck to event throughput. Attempts to deal with this mostly have to do with federation, i.e. forcing people to transact through another entity (usually a company you pay fees to) if they want faster transactions. Federation is much closer to centralized on the centralized/decentralized spectrum. Usually companies respect regulation from centralized government (meaning a government could force them to not process your transactions) increasing centralization further. And historically, federation happens unevenly, i.e. a large number of email users federating under GMail, which creates further centralization. 3. Mining competition has a very high entry cost because the minimum investment for entry is very high. The solution to this is pools under a centralized pool manager who typically collects fees and may or may not collect data on pool members.