Bitcoin as one part of the Decentralized Revolution

[ahpku]

Hm... Guess you need  a second Revolution to really  decentralize the mining...

That would be devolution. Because once upon a time, mining was decentralized.
As was pretty much everything else. There even was a time without governments or nation-states. But then man learned to use clubs and crude stone tools, and ...here we are

Actually the term evolution does not preclude into adapting to gain a former trait that has been lost.

And bitcoin very well may do that.

Sure. Nor does devolution preclude gaining a former trait that has been lost.
The thing about evolutionary development tho, is it implies growing specialization and complexity.

No it doesn't. It simply implies adapting to different conditions.

Complexity often decreases in evolution, e.g. lizards evolving into snakes.

Sure. Snakes lost their legs, we lost our tails (which were rather articulate, to boot), mole rats lost their sight, etc. I said "implies." "Regression" and "devolution" are much more descriptive. And, of course, you deftly edited out the gist:

... But you see the pattern I'm driving at. The conditions which caused mining centralization haven't changed, so my guess is it won't change either.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

And, of course, you deftly edited out the gist:

... But you see the pattern I'm driving at. The conditions which caused mining centralization haven't changed, so my guess is it won't change either.

Actually it very well could change after the halving. Time will tell.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

My suspicion is the less profitable mining is, the more decentralized it will become.

Bitcoin grew too rapidly in value for it to stay decentralized, but mining farms don't make a lot of sense when the payout is small.

[romero121]

Bitcoin can be considered the leader of decentralized revolution. Only because of its decentralized nature bitcoin has got such a great acceptance though it can only be used in the digital form. In future if everything gets the digital form with decentralized nature lot change can be felt in the world.

[ahpku]

My suspicion is the less profitable mining is, the more decentralized it will become.

Bitcoin grew too rapidly in value for it to stay decentralized, but mining farms don't make a lot of sense when the payout is small.

Sure, anything can happen.
Chinese electrical rates could go up around x10, so folks in Belgium can start mining.
It might become substantially cheaper to buy a single miner, instead of a warehouse full of them.
Bitcoin could get banned in China; factory mines become impractical due to Vesuvius-like IR signature (shoot a heatseeker,  randomly, up into Chinese sky, odds of it locking onto a Bitcoin mine: 100%).

And, of course, Mom'll never have the heart to mention electrical bill to her 30-yr-old Bitcoin enthusiast

[kanazawa]

I really agree that it's the essence of decentralization... even if some dickhead says "it concentrate in a pole" I don't give a fuc* abou that... to me, at least where I live things are very hard and btc has come to arrive and to blow everything -- government, banks, etc. It's just a matter of "how" it will be used. Hey guys, let's use it for everything, please, please

[QuestionAuthority]

How about two of the largest purveyors of government propaganda in the world decentralized news networks and education.

[hv_]

Hm... Guess you need  a second Revolution to really  decentralize the mining...

That would be devolution. Because once upon a time, mining was decentralized.
As was pretty much everything else. There even was a time without governments or nation-states. But then man learned to use clubs and crude stone tools, and ...here we are

Actually the term evolution does not preclude into adapting to gain a former trait that has been lost.

And bitcoin very well may do that.

Sure. Nor does devolution preclude gaining a former trait that has been lost.
The thing about evolutionary development tho, is it implies growing specialization and complexity.

No it doesn't. It simply implies adapting to different conditions.

Complexity often decreases in evolution, e.g. lizards evolving into snakes.

Sure. Snakes lost their legs, we lost our tails (which were rather articulate, to boot), mole rats lost their sight, etc. I said "implies." "Regression" and "devolution" are much more descriptive. And, of course, you deftly edited out the gist:

... But you see the pattern I'm driving at. The conditions which caused mining centralization haven't changed, so my guess is it won't change either.

Evolution can go into any direction, also sometimes 'back' (example: whales) . It's all about best, quickest & superior adjustments to the Environment.

So if bitcoin want to be top & alive -> flexibilty / evolution is a MUST (decentralization & scalability are most critical points IMO).

[ahpku]

...
Evolution can go into any direction, also sometimes 'back' (example: whales) . It's all about best, quickest & superior adjustments to the Environment.

So if bitcoin want to be top & alive -> flexibilty / evolution is a MUST (decentralization & scalability are most critical points IMO).

Again, yes, technically it could, but since conditions which favored centralization remain unchanged, see

My suspicion is the less profitable mining is, the more decentralized it will become.

Bitcoin grew too rapidly in value for it to stay decentralized, but mining farms don't make a lot of sense when the payout is small.

Sure, anything can happen.
Chinese electrical rates could go up around x10, so folks in Belgium can start mining.
It might become substantially cheaper to buy a single miner, instead of a warehouse full of them.
Bitcoin could get banned in China; factory mines become impractical due to Vesuvius-like IR signature (shoot a heatseeker,  randomly, up into Chinese sky, odds of it locking onto a Bitcoin mine: 100%).

And, of course, Mom'll never have the heart to mention electrical bill to her 30-yr-old Bitcoin enthusiast