Is Btcoin becoming centralized?

[BTCish]

Algorithm can be changed to avoid new asic development, when for example bitcoin algorithm would be changed to current asic proof, if someone crazy company would start to develop new asic suitable for new algorithm, it would take a while when they succed, after that, algorithm can be changed to avoid that nwe asic too, and thats about it, i would like to see which crazy company would invest in researching technology that would not be needed soon after it is developed. There would be plenty of miners for supporting transactions, you can be sure about that, there just need to be correct information about that for potential miners. I am not in a dream world, unless bitcoin developers are close to large companies that gain profits from asic development, that this all idea is not real. It should not be like that is now, everyone is supporting greedy companies, that is making money by producing miners for dummies, that will most probably get back their money.

[BTCish]

Bitcoin should be decentralized and those who support transactions should be rewarded.

[Tstar]

Bitcoin should be decentralized and those who support transactions should be rewarded.

In a way you are saying that we would need no "professional" mining companies, aren't you? Can you say a bit more? I would also like to have a time again in which we could all participate into the mining process: not for profit purposes, but to be again a part of the development.

[RichBC]

Algorithm can be changed to avoid new asic development, when for example bitcoin algorithm would be changed to current asic proof, if someone crazy company would start to develop new asic suitable for new algorithm, it would take a while when they succed, after that, algorithm can be changed to avoid that nwe asic too, and thats about it, i would like to see which crazy company would invest in researching technology that would not be needed soon after it is developed. There would be plenty of miners for supporting transactions, you can be sure about that, there just need to be correct information about that for potential miners. I am not in a dream world, unless bitcoin developers are close to large companies that gain profits from asic development, that this all idea is not real. It should not be like that is now, everyone is supporting greedy companies, that is making money by producing miners for dummies, that will most probably get back their money.

So you are proposing that the algorithm be changed to render all the existing hardware inoperative, then if a new ASIC is developed that process is repeated. Just so that you can go back to mining with your CPU?

Sounds like a great way of killing Bitcoin stone dead....


Rich

[BTCish]

Algorithm can be changed to avoid new asic development, when for example bitcoin algorithm would be changed to current asic proof, if someone crazy company would start to develop new asic suitable for new algorithm, it would take a while when they succed, after that, algorithm can be changed to avoid that nwe asic too, and thats about it, i would like to see which crazy company would invest in researching technology that would not be needed soon after it is developed. There would be plenty of miners for supporting transactions, you can be sure about that, there just need to be correct information about that for potential miners. I am not in a dream world, unless bitcoin developers are close to large companies that gain profits from asic development, that this all idea is not real. It should not be like that is now, everyone is supporting greedy companies, that is making money by producing miners for dummies, that will most probably get back their money.

So you are proposing that the algorithm be changed to render all the existing hardware inoperative, then if a new ASIC is developed that process is repeated. Just so that you can go back to mining with your CPU?

Sounds like a great way of killing Bitcoin stone dead....


Rich

Think a little bit out of your box. it would not kill btc, it will decentralize it and make all again the part of the developing bitcoin. It can be done smart.

[PCComf]

Think a little bit out of your box. it would not kill btc, it will decentralize it and make all again the part of the developing bitcoin. It can be done smart.

It would be impossible to get consensus when so much of the existing hash is being done by these hardware companies. It's logical that they built farms with significant enough hash power to prevent this sort of disruption from happening and to protect their hardware business. I'm curious how you would deal with that.

EDIT: Oops I managed to post in a thread whose primary purpose is for people to get their quotas for their advertising campaigns. The ignore button is getting hot.

[Dalkore]

Yes, Bitcoin mining is centralizing and will continue to do so until it gets to a point where it is breakeven for the most part or very small margins.

[Abiky]

I think that Bitcoin mining is centralized due to the fact that mining farms have most control of the network's hashrate and thus, rendering an average Joe impossible to mine them using their own ASICs or PC. Just my opinion. 

[superresistant]

Algorithm can be changed to avoid new asic development

1 - The is no asic resistant algorithm.
2 - Changing the algorithm of Bitcoin is impossible (without killing it).

everyone is supporting greedy companies, that is making money by producing miners for dummies, that will most probably get back their money.

No one like them but without them Bitcoin doesn't exist. Your bitcoins are worth zero on a different fork.

You can do it right now yourself : clone the Bitcoin code, change the algo, that's it.
Now you are on the temporary asic resistant chain but no one will ever give you a cent for your bitcoins.

[HarryKPeters]

I think that Bitcoin mining is centralized due to the fact that mining farms have most control of the network's hashrate and thus, rendering an average Joe impossible to mine them using their own ASICs or PC. Just my opinion. 

True the mining centralization is a security hazard, luckily the network also counts on numours bitcoin nodes and they are 'quite' well spread. So there is hope.

However we need to see some diversification towards the mining farms. 2 parties eating up 50% is never good.. In finace we call this a oligopoly and no governement likes it.

Because it gives both party too much power to influence the price of their product.

[Amph]

Algorithm can be changed to avoid new asic development, when for example bitcoin algorithm would be changed to current asic proof, if someone crazy company would start to develop new asic suitable for new algorithm, it would take a while when they succed, after that, algorithm can be changed to avoid that nwe asic too, and thats about it, i would like to see which crazy company would invest in researching technology that would not be needed soon after it is developed. There would be plenty of miners for supporting transactions, you can be sure about that, there just need to be correct information about that for potential miners. I am not in a dream world, unless bitcoin developers are close to large companies that gain profits from asic development, that this all idea is not real. It should not be like that is now, everyone is supporting greedy companies, that is making money by producing miners for dummies, that will most probably get back their money.

no please not this shit again, algo cannot be changed at this point, because all miners need to change their asic, which will kill bitcoin completely

you see vertocoin, when they changed their algo the whole coin died and that was much less painful than something like a "400 peta of algo to be changed"

[notlist3d]

Algorithm can be changed to avoid new asic development, when for example bitcoin algorithm would be changed to current asic proof, if someone crazy company would start to develop new asic suitable for new algorithm, it would take a while when they succed, after that, algorithm can be changed to avoid that nwe asic too, and thats about it, i would like to see which crazy company would invest in researching technology that would not be needed soon after it is developed. There would be plenty of miners for supporting transactions, you can be sure about that, there just need to be correct information about that for potential miners. I am not in a dream world, unless bitcoin developers are close to large companies that gain profits from asic development, that this all idea is not real. It should not be like that is now, everyone is supporting greedy companies, that is making money by producing miners for dummies, that will most probably get back their money.

no please not this shit again, algo cannot be changed at this point, because all miners need to change their asic, which will kill bitcoin completely

you see vertocoin, when they changed their algo the whole coin died and that was much less painful than something like a "400 peta of algo to be changed"

And really if a coin is profitable... move will be moved find a way to mine it.  Think about all the CPU coins there was at one time, now almost all can be done by GPU.  There is not even a CPU coin worth mining. 

Think of scrypt.... it was big money and what happened? Investments came in and they made a scrypt asic.  So it is not surprising if there is technology that comes out such as asics if a certain algo is worth it.  But the sad truth is besides BTC and LTC the rest don't really tend to be as stable, and I was someone that loved Dodge but it lost a lot it's popularity.  There is a lot of pump/dump now.

[Nameless Coin]

Algorithm can be changed to avoid new asic development, when for example bitcoin algorithm would be changed to current asic proof, if someone crazy company would start to develop new asic suitable for new algorithm, it would take a while when they succed, after that, algorithm can be changed to avoid that nwe asic too, and thats about it, i would like to see which crazy company would invest in researching technology that would not be needed soon after it is developed. There would be plenty of miners for supporting transactions, you can be sure about that, there just need to be correct information about that for potential miners. I am not in a dream world, unless bitcoin developers are close to large companies that gain profits from asic development, that this all idea is not real. It should not be like that is now, everyone is supporting greedy companies, that is making money by producing miners for dummies, that will most probably get back their money.

no please not this shit again, algo cannot be changed at this point, because all miners need to change their asic, which will kill bitcoin completely

you see vertocoin, when they changed their algo the whole coin died and that was much less painful than something like a "400 peta of algo to be changed"

The difference with VTC was that Vertcoin was already on a demise and they hoped this would bring new life in their coin, they failed badly however.

[alh]

I don't understand why folks think that for Bitcoin to succeed that there must be 1 million or more miners. If folks are worried about the dreaded 51% attack, then won't 100 equally sixed mining pools cover that? If it's going to be some kind of useful payment scheme, then it's going to need to have low transaction costs, or it will be a failure compared to existing systems. Some degree of centralization will almost be a requirement in order keep economies of scale up.

Yes, it was cool when folks could all mine Bitcoins on GPU's. That was an interesting starting, point, but it's not the long term (i.e. more than 10 years out) future of BTC, nor it's final destination.

[LuckyYOU]

I don't understand why folks think that for Bitcoin to succeed that there must be 1 million or more miners. If folks are worried about the dreaded 51% attack, then won't 100 equally sixed mining pools cover that? If it's going to be some kind of useful payment scheme, then it's going to need to have low transaction costs, or it will be a failure compared to existing systems. Some degree of centralization will almost be a requirement in order keep economies of scale up.

Yes, it was cool when folks could all mine Bitcoins on GPU's. That was an interesting starting, point, but it's not the long term (i.e. more than 10 years out) future of BTC, nor it's final destination.

Millions of miners are not needed, but people are rightfully worried about thetop 3/4 mining pools. Instead of new competition they are getting bigger (bigger distance with th no 3, etc.).
Like CEX.io a year ago had. Now people are worried too.

[bitlancr]

Answer: Yes

It's good however because not 1 pool/party can do a 51% attacked. Compared to 2 years ago, there are more miners and also more bigger pools.

[amrulshare]

Answer: Yes

It's good however because not 1 pool/party can do a 51% attacked. Compared to 2 years ago, there are more miners and also more bigger pools.

It is getting more centralized and yes i agree it is not a bad thing actually. As long there is enoug competition between large pools/ miner centra. the safety of the network against 51% attacks is guaranteed.

[Tmdz]

The other side of the coin is a bigger network more power to compute transactions.  The network today is centralized to a point being major company's house the majority of the network power.  Cexio at a point had 50% of the network but they have downsized to prevent a overtake and endangering the coin.  So we will continue this trend and the big company's will continue to be the majority of the backbone.  Its more of a unavoidable future that will happen once something becomes mainstream.

When someone makes a product it might start in his garage and then some small producers but eventually to reduce costs and be efficient your product will be produced in China for less money on a mega scale.