To stop centralization, you need to cap the Difficulty, not the Blocksize !!!

[GermanGiant]

I see, there are people saying that increasing block size will increase centralization. This is true. But, the heart of bitcoin, i.e. mining, is already centralized. And this is due to pool mining. I hear, miners will decide with their hash power that which BIP will win. But, this is practically pool owners are chosing, not an average miner. If you want to stop this centralization, break the pools. This requires capping the difficulty, not the blocksize.

March 2, 2016 Update : Core devs are now planning a Hardfork to fix difficulty drop algorithm.

[meono]

I see, there are people saying that increasing block size will increase centralization. This is true. But, the heart of bitcoin, i.e. mining, is already centralized. And this is due to pool mining. I hear, miners will decide with their hash power that which BIP will win. But, this is practically pool owners are chosing, not an average miner. If you want to stop this centralization, break the pools. This requires capping the difficulty, not the blocksize.

Omg i think you might beat turtlehuricane in stupidity contest.....

Wow

[meono]

Or maybe you forgot your meds today? So your brain is farting ?

[adamstgBit]

I see, there are people saying that increasing block size will increase centralization. This is true. But, the heart of bitcoin, i.e. mining, is already centralized. And this is due to pool mining. I hear, miners will decide with their hash power that which BIP will win. But, this is practically pool owners are chosing, not an average miner. If you want to stop this centralization, break the pools. This requires capping the difficulty, not the blocksize.

mining pools do not "centralize" bitcoin.
for example, the current voting going on isn't made by the pools individual miners of that pools choose what they are voting for.
and if a pool ever do not operate to an individual's liking he is free to choose a pool that dose.
if anything pools allow for further decentralization of bitcoin mining by allowing small miners to continue to mine at such a high difficulty.

[GermanGiant]

and if a pool ever do not operate to an individual's liking he is free to choose a pool that dose.

This is only a theory and does not happen in practical life due to inertia problem. This is the reason XT could not gain traction. As long as the exisitng setup is not directly hurting them, majority does not want a change. So, whatever the pool owner choses will be accepted by an average miner.

[adamstgBit]

and if a pool ever do not operate to an individual's liking he is free to choose a pool that dose.

This is only a theory and does not happen in practical life due to inertia problem. This is the reason XT could not gain traction. As long as the exisitng setup is not directly hurting them, majority does not want a change. So, whatever the pool owner choses will be accepted by an average miner.

well i guess that's true to a point
if a pool public announces  its running XT code ready to fork bitcoin
you can bet your ass everyone will vacate that pool.
actually poeple stopped going to and switch out of ghah.io pool when it hit >51% power

[GermanGiant]

if anything pools allow for further decentralization of bitcoin mining by allowing small miners to continue to mine at such a high difficulty.

According to this logic central banks allow decentralization of wealth.

[adamstgBit]

if anything pools allow for further decentralization of bitcoin mining by allowing small miners to continue to mine at such a high difficulty.

According to this logic central banks allow decentralization of wealth.

my logic is irrefutable.

without pools bitcoin mining would only be feasible by massive multi million dollar mining farms.

[yayayo]

Pools are not centralizing Bitcoin, because they compete with each other and miners are free to choose with which pool they want to mine.

The problems created by excessive block sizes are far more serious, because this leads to a reduction in the number of all full nodes, not just miners. This would reduce the overall security of the network and make surveillance / blocking of nodes much easier.

ya.ya.yo!

[adamstgBit]

Pools are not centralizing Bitcoin, because they compete with each other and miners are free to choose with which pool they want to mine.

The problems created by excessive block sizes are far more serious, because this leads to a reduction in the number of all full nodes, not just miners. This would reduce the overall security of the network and make surveillance / blocking of nodes much easier.

ya.ya.yo!

let's say there are 0 full nodes only minners, how does this impact security? only total hashing power determines the level of security no?

[ebliever]

I see, there are people saying that increasing block size will increase centralization. This is true. But, the heart of bitcoin, i.e. mining, is already centralized. And this is due to pool mining. I hear, miners will decide with their hash power that which BIP will win. But, this is practically pool owners are chosing, not an average miner. If you want to stop this centralization, break the pools. This requires capping the difficulty, not the blocksize.

Capping the difficulty means that blocks would be found faster and faster as hashrate increases, accelerating bitcoin towards the final 21 million coin money supply point much faster than under the current plan. Miners would find blocks faster, but the halvings would come much faster so they'd be getting less and less when they did score a block.

I'm not sure how capping difficulty would change anything. If anything the only miners that could stay mining in such an environment would be the most efficient (of course this is tending to be true today, but would be even more so under these conditions). That would increase centralization of mining, not decrease it.

[brg444]

Pools are not centralizing Bitcoin, because they compete with each other and miners are free to choose with which pool they want to mine.

The problems created by excessive block sizes are far more serious, because this leads to a reduction in the number of all full nodes, not just miners. This would reduce the overall security of the network and make surveillance / blocking of nodes much easier.

ya.ya.yo!

let's say there are 0 full nodes only minners, how does this impact security? only total hashing power determines the level of security no?

I presume you suggest there is 1 node since 0 pretty much means the system is dead.

So... 1 node servicing all of Bitcoin..mmmmm I wonder what could go wrong 

[GermanGiant]

I see, there are people saying that increasing block size will increase centralization. This is true. But, the heart of bitcoin, i.e. mining, is already centralized. And this is due to pool mining. I hear, miners will decide with their hash power that which BIP will win. But, this is practically pool owners are chosing, not an average miner. If you want to stop this centralization, break the pools. This requires capping the difficulty, not the blocksize.

Capping the difficulty means that blocks would be found faster and faster as hashrate increases, accelerating bitcoin towards the final 21 million coin money supply point much faster than under the current plan. Miners would find blocks faster, but the halvings would come much faster so they'd be getting less and less when they did score a block.

I'm not sure how capping difficulty would change anything. If anything the only miners that could stay mining in such an environment would be the most efficient (of course this is tending to be true today, but would be even more so under these conditions). That would increase centralization of mining, not decrease it.

No. If difficulty is capped, block reward needs to be adjusted accordingly, so that all bitcoins do not get mined faster. Lowering block reward in capping difficulty will de-incentivize big hash power, wich is resource hungry. So, mining will be back to small machines again, if we can take down the difficulty and lower the block reward.

[NorrisK]

I see, there are people saying that increasing block size will increase centralization. This is true. But, the heart of bitcoin, i.e. mining, is already centralized. And this is due to pool mining. I hear, miners will decide with their hash power that which BIP will win. But, this is practically pool owners are chosing, not an average miner. If you want to stop this centralization, break the pools. This requires capping the difficulty, not the blocksize.

Capping the difficulty means that blocks would be found faster and faster as hashrate increases, accelerating bitcoin towards the final 21 million coin money supply point much faster than under the current plan. Miners would find blocks faster, but the halvings would come much faster so they'd be getting less and less when they did score a block.

I'm not sure how capping difficulty would change anything. If anything the only miners that could stay mining in such an environment would be the most efficient (of course this is tending to be true today, but would be even more so under these conditions). That would increase centralization of mining, not decrease it.

No. If difficulty is capped, block reward needs to be adjusted accordingly, so that all bitcoins do not get mined faster. Lowering block reward in capping difficulty will de-incentivize big hash power, wich is resource hungry. So, mining will be back to small machines again, if we can take down the difficulty and lower the block reward.

Blocktimes might become way too fast. Which causes a lot of orphan blocks and problems related to that. If pool mining was not possible, I agree more home miners would mine indeed.

[brg444]

Capping the difficulty would screw the issuance schedule... this is non sense

[Amph]

Pools are not centralizing Bitcoin, because they compete with each other and miners are free to choose with which pool they want to mine.

The problems created by excessive block sizes are far more serious, because this leads to a reduction in the number of all full nodes, not just miners. This would reduce the overall security of the network and make surveillance / blocking of nodes much easier.

ya.ya.yo!

let's say there are 0 full nodes only minners, how does this impact security? only total hashing power determines the level of security no?

aside from the sybil attack there are no other problem about security if there are zero full node, miners are more important

it's probably the reason why there are zero incentive for them, to run one

[ebliever]

I see, there are people saying that increasing block size will increase centralization. This is true. But, the heart of bitcoin, i.e. mining, is already centralized. And this is due to pool mining. I hear, miners will decide with their hash power that which BIP will win. But, this is practically pool owners are chosing, not an average miner. If you want to stop this centralization, break the pools. This requires capping the difficulty, not the blocksize.

Capping the difficulty means that blocks would be found faster and faster as hashrate increases, accelerating bitcoin towards the final 21 million coin money supply point much faster than under the current plan. Miners would find blocks faster, but the halvings would come much faster so they'd be getting less and less when they did score a block.

I'm not sure how capping difficulty would change anything. If anything the only miners that could stay mining in such an environment would be the most efficient (of course this is tending to be true today, but would be even more so under these conditions). That would increase centralization of mining, not decrease it.

No. If difficulty is capped, block reward needs to be adjusted accordingly, so that all bitcoins do not get mined faster. Lowering block reward in capping difficulty will de-incentivize big hash power, wich is resource hungry. So, mining will be back to small machines again, if we can take down the difficulty and lower the block reward.

You didn't explain up front that you were also proposing to change the block rewards. Nonetheless this changes nothing. "big hash power" is MORE efficient than small home miners, not less as implied by your "resource hungry" comment. The relationship doesn't change just because we change the pacing of block rewards or the size of the rewards. Home-based miners will lose money trying to mine 1 BTC blocks as easily as they can now mining 25 BTC blocks, with small-scale inefficient setups.

You are asking the impossible when you call for decentralization by protocol changes. As it stands the success of bitcoin means that there is big money in mining/securing the network. Because there is big money involved, there is large incentive to investment a lot of money to be the most efficient miner and mine on a large scale. I don't like that either, but I don't see a solution. It's inherent to the fact that mining bitcoin has become lucrative. The only way to "fix" that would be to destroy the value of mining, which is hardly desirable.

The only real way I can see to fight for decentralization is to maintain low barriers to entry, and equal access to the most efficient bitcoin mining hardware. This means encouraging regulatory and legal scrutiny of mining hardware makers (and their relationships with large miners) to ensure no funny business in the way mining hardware is made available and sold in an equitable manner. (Given this is largely a function of Chinese government/law as things stand, I have no idea how to approach this in practice and the downside risks of such scrutiny.)

[brg444]

Pools are not centralizing Bitcoin, because they compete with each other and miners are free to choose with which pool they want to mine.

The problems created by excessive block sizes are far more serious, because this leads to a reduction in the number of all full nodes, not just miners. This would reduce the overall security of the network and make surveillance / blocking of nodes much easier.

ya.ya.yo!

let's say there are 0 full nodes only minners, how does this impact security? only total hashing power determines the level of security no?

aside from the sybil attack there are no other problem about security if there are zero full node, miners are more important

it's probably the reason why there are zero incentive for them, to run one

 

No problem about security other than arbitrarily double spending, issuing 100,000,000 coins for themselves, etc, etc. You realise ONE node has the ability to totally rewrite the protocol.

Mining is without doubt second to nodes in terms of importance:
http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/

[maokoto]

As I understand it, it is not the pools who vote, but the miners inside the pool, right? I mean, a miner in one pool can vote distinct that other miners in the same pool?

[spazzdla]

Pools don't control anything.... the miners in them do.