China's network

[greenuser]

I think Satoshi  showed incredible political insight to when  he wrote “A peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”.   He points out “Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes.  The cost of mediating increases transaction costs”... These “costs” create work for predominately western institutions, arguably skewing global redistribution of wealth per head of capita.

The Chinese miners will not go off line.  They have a different ethos.  Plus “The Party” (government) protect them.  We need to remember ¾ of the worlds population are  Chinese.  It is very good for global redistribution of wealth per head of capita that ¾ of the distribution of the bitcoin network is Chinese based.

Some say it is wrong that they have such big mining operations but they are a collectivist society.  They pool their work.  Historically, agriculture was scaled up by the collective farming model in both Russia and China.  Depending how you were raised is how you will interoperate this, (cultural relativism).  If you were raised in the US you may see this as “Communism”.  If you were raised in Israel, you may compare this to the “kibbutz”. 

This “collectivist” approach gives the Chinese some security as they are all “on side” however, our western individualist approach is somewhat more vulnerable as our governments and financial institutions are "on their own sides” competing against us.  Nothing to stop JPMorgan, Lloyds, etc starting their own Blockchain and in cahoots with governments, outlaw bitcoin.
If you ask me.... the western (German and US) proportion of the network is more likely to go “off-line” than the Chinese proportion because of this.

[1715420584]

1715420584

[1715420584]

1715420584

[1715420584]

1715420584

[d57heinz]

I think Satoshi  showed incredible political insight to when  he wrote “A peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”.   He points out “Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes.  The cost of mediating increases transaction costs”... These “costs” create work for predominately western institutions, arguably skewing global redistribution of wealth per head of capita.

The Chinese miners will not go off line.  They have a different ethos.  Plus “The Party” (government) protect them.  We need to remember ¾ of the worlds population are  Chinese.  It is very good for global redistribution of wealth per head of capita that ¾ of the distribution of the uᴉoɔʇᴉq network is Chinese based.

Some say it is wrong that they have such big mining operations but they are a collectivist society.  They pool their work.  Historically, agriculture was scaled up by the collective farming model in both Russia and China.  Depending how you were raised is how you will interoperate this, (cultural relativism).  If you were raised in the US you may see this as “Communism”.  If you were raised in Israel, you may compare this to the “kibbutz”. 

This “collectivist” approach gives the Chinese some security as they are all “on side” however, our western individualist approach is somewhat more vulnerable as our governments and financial institutions are "on their own sides” competing against us.  Nothing to stop JPMorgan, Lloyds, etc starting their own Blockchain and in cahoots with governments, outlaw uᴉoɔʇᴉq.
If you ask me.... the western (German and US) proportion of the network is more likely to go “off-line” than the Chinese proportion because of this.

Absolutely a great way to look at it .. Opened my eyes a bit.
Thanks for that

Best Regards
Doug

[kano]

greenuser, arguing against yourself makes no sense

Peer-2-peer is exactly that ... individual, not collectivist.

Centralised pools, like my own as well of course, are not the design of bitcoin.
They represent a large point of control of bitcoin and thus a risk of simplifying an attack on bitcoin by interfering with a (very) small target.

Currently almost 60% of bitcoin is effectively controlled by 2 people.
That is not at all in line with a “A peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” design.

If USA went off-line, well, then there's the rest of the world still online anyway.
It's not USA vs China, it's a peer-2-peer world wide distributed network, that currently has MAJOR centralisation in 2 people in China.

There are other sizeable pools and miners in China, fortunately not under the control of those 2 people.
There should be more for the safety of Bitcoin.

There is of course the other issue of the GFW ... but that's a whole 'nother discussion

--

FYI: this is also one of the reasons why I've stated that my pool has a limit of 10% of the network - even 10% is high, but at least that limit, if it was chosen by other pools also, would mean that the distribution of bitcoin control would mean it would be safer from attacks than it is today.