4 ms·

It is a misnomer that it matters where the hashrate is on the planet. What matters is the amount of control any single entity has. Even in China, it was indivi

It is a misnomer that it matters where the hashrate is on the planet. What matters is the amount of control any single entity has. Even in China, it was individuals setting up mining rigs, not some giant government conspiracy to control all the hashrate.

wmf 4y ago
The argument was that the government could have controlled the miners if they wanted to. They never exercised that power (except to eventually ban mining) but it was there.
- latchkey 4y ago
  Exactly, it is more efficient to just ban it. Even in China, I don't think they can just declare eminent domain over someone's business, but they can certainly control who gets power generated for them. On top of it, if you've ever run a large scale mining operation (and I've run several), it isn't easy. There is a lot of competence required to do it profitably.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > in China, I don't think they can just declare eminent domain over someone's business Beijing can absolutely just seize a business. Disappearing leadership [1], installing Party Board members [2], promoting Party management members (a requirement for any business of consequence [3]) and simply taking assets are commonplace in China. Eminent domain doesn’t really exist because the legal system is subservient to the Party [4]. If the CCP wants something, it takes it; it doesn’t need court permission. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/2f7c7a10-2df3-4f1b-8d2a-eea0e0548713 https://www.ft.com/content/2f7c7a10-2df3-4f1b-8d2a-eea0e0548... [2] https://thediplomat.com/2019/12/politics-in-the-boardroom-the-role-of-chinese-communist-party-committees/ https://thediplomat.com/2019/12/politics-in-the-boardroom-th... [3] https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/25/china-business-xi-jinping-communist-party-state-private-enterprise-huawei https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/25/china-business... [4] https://www.hrw.org/report/2008/04/28/walking-thin-ice/control-intimidation-and-harassment-lawyers-china https://www.hrw.org/report/2008/04/28/walking-thin-ice/contr...
    - latchkey 4y ago
      It isn't one business though, it is/was ~40% of the hashrate, spread across the entire country, run by who knows how many operations. We're talking about tens of thousands of computers and hundreds of megawatts of power. It is one thing to take it over and shut it down, but a whole another thing to keep it running. It isn't like the people running it will just suddenly want to work for a new (hostile) boss. Like I said before, this stuff isn't trivial to run. You don't just plug a box in and call it good.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > isn't like the people running it will just suddenly want to work for a new (hostile) boss Have you ever done business in China? Everyone already works for that boss. The boss may not be as present yet, but they’re there, and refusing to follow a Party member’s orders is a criminal offense.
        latchkey 4y ago
        Indirectly, yes. One of my large mining operations was based in Vietnam and we used equipment sourced directly from China due to our partnership with a very large crypto company there, with a two letter domain name. You're taking one talking point out of the conversation and then trying to apply that as a whole. The larger picture here is that what you are replying to isn't the point of what I'm talking about, but it sure makes you sound like you know what you're talking about though. The fact is that the govt would likely never take over every single mining operation, when the lowest barrier is to simply ban it. That's exactly what happened. They don't need Bitcoin, when they have their own infinite money printer. Even if they didn't ban it, and still took it all over, they wouldn't have enough hashrate to control the network (~40 < ~51). If they somehow invested even more funds into this massive operation to control more hashrate, what could they do? At most, reorg a few blocks and effectively destroy bitcoin. It would be a very expensive suicide, for what purpose?
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
nathias 4y ago
your use of misnomer is a misnomer
- latchkey 4y ago
  what would be a better word to use?
  - modeless 4y ago
    "Fallacy" or "misconception" would be closer to what you meant.
  - sowbug 4y ago
    The "nom" is your clue that the word has do to with names or labels. Nominally (in name only), denomination (the label giving the value), nominate (to be named to a position), etc. I think even "number" (a label for a quantity) and "name" come from the same root. It follows that a misnomer is a "bad name," usually stemming from a misunderstanding about an origin. E.g., a firefly isn't a fly, a peanut isn't a nut, a starfish isn't a fish, a shooting star isn't a star, etc.

wmf 4y ago

The argument was that the government could have controlled the miners if they wanted to. They never exercised that power (except to eventually ban mining) but it was there.

latchkey 4y ago
Exactly, it is more efficient to just ban it. Even in China, I don't think they can just declare eminent domain over someone's business, but they can certainly control who gets power generated for them. On top of it, if you've ever run a large scale mining operation (and I've run several), it isn't easy. There is a lot of competence required to do it profitably.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > in China, I don't think they can just declare eminent domain over someone's business Beijing can absolutely just seize a business. Disappearing leadership [1], installing Party Board members [2], promoting Party management members (a requirement for any business of consequence [3]) and simply taking assets are commonplace in China. Eminent domain doesn’t really exist because the legal system is subservient to the Party [4]. If the CCP wants something, it takes it; it doesn’t need court permission. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/2f7c7a10-2df3-4f1b-8d2a-eea0e0548713 https://www.ft.com/content/2f7c7a10-2df3-4f1b-8d2a-eea0e0548... [2] https://thediplomat.com/2019/12/politics-in-the-boardroom-the-role-of-chinese-communist-party-committees/ https://thediplomat.com/2019/12/politics-in-the-boardroom-th... [3] https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/25/china-business-xi-jinping-communist-party-state-private-enterprise-huawei https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/25/china-business... [4] https://www.hrw.org/report/2008/04/28/walking-thin-ice/control-intimidation-and-harassment-lawyers-china https://www.hrw.org/report/2008/04/28/walking-thin-ice/contr...
  - latchkey 4y ago
    It isn't one business though, it is/was ~40% of the hashrate, spread across the entire country, run by who knows how many operations. We're talking about tens of thousands of computers and hundreds of megawatts of power. It is one thing to take it over and shut it down, but a whole another thing to keep it running. It isn't like the people running it will just suddenly want to work for a new (hostile) boss. Like I said before, this stuff isn't trivial to run. You don't just plug a box in and call it good.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > isn't like the people running it will just suddenly want to work for a new (hostile) boss Have you ever done business in China? Everyone already works for that boss. The boss may not be as present yet, but they’re there, and refusing to follow a Party member’s orders is a criminal offense.
      - latchkey 4y ago
        Indirectly, yes. One of my large mining operations was based in Vietnam and we used equipment sourced directly from China due to our partnership with a very large crypto company there, with a two letter domain name. You're taking one talking point out of the conversation and then trying to apply that as a whole. The larger picture here is that what you are replying to isn't the point of what I'm talking about, but it sure makes you sound like you know what you're talking about though. The fact is that the govt would likely never take over every single mining operation, when the lowest barrier is to simply ban it. That's exactly what happened. They don't need Bitcoin, when they have their own infinite money printer. Even if they didn't ban it, and still took it all over, they wouldn't have enough hashrate to control the network (~40 < ~51). If they somehow invested even more funds into this massive operation to control more hashrate, what could they do? At most, reorg a few blocks and effectively destroy bitcoin. It would be a very expensive suicide, for what purpose?
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago

nathias 4y ago

your use of misnomer is a misnomer

latchkey 4y ago
what would be a better word to use?
- modeless 4y ago
  "Fallacy" or "misconception" would be closer to what you meant.
- sowbug 4y ago
  The "nom" is your clue that the word has do to with names or labels. Nominally (in name only), denomination (the label giving the value), nominate (to be named to a position), etc. I think even "number" (a label for a quantity) and "name" come from the same root. It follows that a misnomer is a "bad name," usually stemming from a misunderstanding about an origin. E.g., a firefly isn't a fly, a peanut isn't a nut, a starfish isn't a fish, a shooting star isn't a star, etc.