Bitcoin Forum

I think that people should think twice, before investing in projects which claims to be decentralized. Why? Because cryptocurrencies needs usage in order to succeed. Bitcoin is the king, but it is controlled by the chinese, same goes (probably) for Litecoin. If you stop for a minute, and think for a while, you'll realize that even the air is centralized. Why would you care if some guy has more bitcoins (or whatever)? It is working! In my humble opinion, "the war" about decentralization will be lost. It may have some success, but it will become something like currently the darknet markets are. Don't buy promises, roadmaps and whitepapers, buy the project's usage!  

real life pragmatic usage.  why steem is a success even tho its inflated and centralized

The cancer is all about Mining Pools. We don't need no ASIC resistance, we need pool resistance.

Trading sites are another matter. There are approaches of decentralized trading platforms allready on their way.

Yes! I'll quote a comment who made me laugh about 10 mins ago. :D



Approaches - yes, but real decentralization is currently something imaginary.

I am not an expert at mining or technical side of coin development. So Is this even possible to create a coin which will be Mining Pool resistant?
I guess anti ASIC coins can be created. But how exactly can we create anti mining pool coin? Maybe something like this exists already?

Am i confused with how i understand decentralized? I actually thought decentralized mean none even the dev team don't manage a thing.
Well most project these days are managed by CEO but then it always work and people invest when they hear the word decentralized.

But it doesn't matter to them now whatever decentralized mean, they still profit after dumping the coins the first day of its release.

Decred is mining pool resistant, PoS stakers can vote agaist PoW miners

PoS is a scam in every single possible way.  I mean, I hardly agree with every single thing that OP was saying, but you do have to judge the crypto by it's usage and development... not just some hyped up white paper that uses a lot of buzz words to catch your attention, you need to dive a little bit deeper than the buzz words.

I do think some form of ASIC resistance is a good thing.  Centralization of miners would be a lot tougher, but all in all, if you want to use some form of crypto currency that uses a blockchain, then you will always have pools.  Unless you could some how force people to mine only on their daemon and prevent people to connect to other peoples nodes, then maybe... but that comes with a lot more cons thans pros in my mind.

one the same spirit there is p2p mining... and frankly exchanges failures in series were more damaging than pools. You can redirect your hashrate pretty fast and pools have a good track record...

Why do you think that PoS is a scam? I believe that in some time a better way of distribution would be found. I'd like to compare it with bank interest (when you deposit some money).

And why you disagree? I have been told that banks are sometimes using a 50-year old code. If Bitcoin (for example) becomes a larger threat to the banks (or whatever), they will just enforce laws and create their own.  With that said, I'm not sure if its good cryptocurrencies to have a better adoption, because it could be the beginning of their end (as we know it). Don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to be realistic here.

PoS is going to create an abundance of AppCoins. Apps that have their own PoS blockchain with a coin. The coin powers the app. You can already see what success this is having with Steem and Synereo.

I think the potential for decentralization is the key thing to maintain. sure, bitcoin's effectively centralized, but what keeps people on board is the knowledge that the possibility for the power to be taken away exists. it may not be realistic but it is possible.

a coin that's unequivocally centralized is gonna be a turn off but maybe not quite enough of a turn off than we'd like it to be.

I feel that people need a mix of centralization and decentralization, as some people need to be able to push the coin to usage. The one thing is that the leader(s) that can ruin / mess with the whole coin.


It's a tough balance to hold but it's possible.

PoS would create a "larger distribution of coins"? Not in the slightest.  First of all, cryptographically it is just unsecure to not have a PoW algorithm.  Someone would have to be insanely determined and have a ton of computing power on his side if that person wanted to do something malicious.

And secondly it wouldn't creat a larger distribution of coins over time.  People would just keep it in their wallets and not use the currency at all and just let it grow over time.  That's not how a currency should work, at least in my mind it shouldn't.

Not larger, better. There are ways to create a PoS cryptocurrency with fair interest and supply, which can match (for example) to mined bitcoins per year. 

Bitcoin is not controlled by the chinese. The chinese still have to come into agreements with the devs, the merchants and the node runners.

Also in the future we will have other countries competing against china.

i agree with this, but it doest mean scam... and again it brings decred as a good example(pow+pos).

I am waiting the release of a 100% non chinese competitive miner... I hope it will happen one day. Maybe an Intel, Nvidia, Amd or what ever new brand who takes the challenge and bring a little bit more competition to the chinese manufacturers.

That's like to expect a 5-year old child to take the heavyweight title from the 80's Mike Tyson.

Maybe when you own some and just hold it, but how will people get that supply if they don't purchase some? That's pretty scammy (ponzi'ish) to me I would say... and yet at the same time, not even remotely close security wise compared to a PoW algorithm. It sounds good to you on paper when you worry about collecting interest like a bank, but the whole point of cryptocurrencies is to get away from a "banking" like system and to create a decentralized currency that (theoretically) anyone can get by running nodes and mining, while also making it secure and decentralized.

Now in my mind, ASIC resistance is the way to go... but could be wrong.

The thread is not about current pros and cons of PoW and PoS. Of course that you have to purchase some in order to take the interest. What matters here is how this interest will be distributed (i.e. currently PoS is making rich richer) between stakeholders. The whole point of cryptocurrencies is to compete with fiat (i.e. to show it is the better way), which means that they are competing with the banks. As far as I know there is nothing decentralized at the moment and that is why I started this thread. I'm not sure if it will be ever achieved. 

that apply to pow too... how would you mine without the hardware? and if you can buy the hardware you can buy the coin and stake right? no diference..
but @spartark_t already said this is not the thread subject so i will not continue.

Wrong, buying the hype turned out to be the most profitable way out there ;)

Sure. You also have a better chance to get rich quicker by enslaving few Eastern european girls and force them into prostitution, than working in a fish plant.

Without redistribution everything gets centralized roughly along the lines of the Pareto Principle...
80% of sales from 20% of clients, 80% of wealth owned by 20% of population, etc...
Because that's human nature... and you cannot change human nature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

For anything to be differently distributed requires heavy-handed, corrupt central abuse...
So by that standard Bitcoin and most Third World governments are extremely corrupt...
While most Western governments and corporations are are moderately corrupt, but getting worse every year.

I've been waiting for a crypto ecosystem to apply periodic REDISTRIBUTION based on meritocracy...
And Steemit talks a lot about transferring wealth to contributors from non-contributors in their Whitepaper...
Plus only Steemit has the metrics and power to do a periodic redistribution among holders...
If they did a carefully weighted, logarithmic redistribution quarterly to ALL contributors (devs, content, users, voters, traders)...

It would be radical and electrifying.
 

fish plant ... LOLZ ... I live in a region total dependent on the fish plant factor ... how many can you gut/hr?  robots will aid!  contigent on raping the local natural resources, of course.


Yes decentralization is a dream.  No coin is near BTC except ETH and ... well ... that project is garbage.

All other contenders are built on the same BTC model of constructing a POW that can be compromised by Chinese tech driven ASIC hardware.

Everything else is dependent on holding BTC to underwrite their project.

I think Monero has got some inbuilt features that Bitcoin does not have, so that means it's not built on the Bitcoin framework.

agree. And DNM will probably bring the adoption needed...
but still not even near to decentralization.