Centralization of mining? "opinions"

[Sierra8561]

Bitcoin was started based on the decentralization. To this day people continually boast how decentralization will change the world. So I ask why is bitcoin allowing mining to become centralized? Doesn't that go against everything bitcoin stands for? Allowing mining to be controlled by a few will eventually destroy what Satoshi Nakamoto envisioned.
I'm curious what those in charge of bitcoin plan to do about this? I'm also looking forward to the opinion of those on this board.
Maybe I'm missing something and mining isn't becoming centralized?

[1715687129]

1715687129

[Amph]

it should have been made early when still gpu mining was possible, it should have been made in the way that when asic were becoming a threat, a new algo would have been issued and so on

some altcoin did that, this was the only solution to prevent asic to centralized(not totally) the network, changing algo each time

[Cyaren]

I think it is a huge problem that bitcoin faces today. The centralization of mining may impose a huge risk to the bitcoin community.

But I don't think that right now is a valid time to worry about it yet. There could be much more centralization in the coming years, and the devs can do something about it in response.

[kano]

Sigh.
2 pointless replies above.

"Lets remove centralisation by using a centralised group of devs forcing a change ..."

The "centralised bitcoin devs" work based on who pays them.
No different to complaining about 2 people in china controlling 60-70% of bitcoin.

Trying to "force decentralisation" is not decentralisation, it's centralisation.

It's a peer-2-peer network.
The solution is, if you want to change it, then take part in it and do what you want with it.
Convince others to join your cause ...

[aliashraf]

....
The solution is, if you want to change it, then take part in it and do what you want with it.
Convince others to join your cause ...

Good direction but no ultimate solution. Obviously something should change and someone has to make a move. Nothing happens with your few TH/s hash power taking part and "convincing" people to do so is not enough: technological advantage outperforms people, one should organize people. Not every organisation is centralized. Bitcoin  can be used to form decentralized organisations (not talking about Ethereum and DAO, I am not a believer in Turing complete alternatives). The thing about cloud mining is its opaque business model, we need very large transparent cloud mining plants, their transparency being somewhat (just somewhat, it is practically enough) guaranteed by Bitcoin infrastructure.
Speaking of solution, it is kind of a solution and encouraging each other to 'take part' is just a 'part' of the solution.

[Amph]

Sigh.
2 pointless replies above.

"Lets remove centralisation by using a centralised group of devs forcing a change ..."

The "centralised bitcoin devs" work based on who pays them.
No different to complaining about 2 people in china controlling 60-70% of bitcoin.

Trying to "force decentralisation" is not decentralisation, it's centralisation.

It's a peer-2-peer network.
The solution is, if you want to change it, then take part in it and do what you want with it.
Convince others to join your cause ...

no because it would have been done via consensus, not via forcing anything like you said, if the majority were in agreement to change the algo at the beginning

i can't see how this is more centralizated or even on par to the current mining centralization in china

unless you are telling me that the change for the block limit is "centralized as well", no-sense...

[mwizard]

There seems to be a view among some posters that mining must be decentralized.

From Satoshi on
 Development & Technical Discussion > Post reply ( Re: Scalability and transaction rate )

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale.  That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server.  The design supports letting users just be users.  The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be.  Those few nodes will be big server farms.  The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.

People need to remember Bitcoin was created to provide a way of moving electronic cash without needing to go through a trusted third party, for example a bank.  

Mining is simply part of making cryptocurrencies possible.  At least there is still one miner manufacturer (Bitmain) selling a miner to the general pubic.  

[nwfella]

The fact that roughly 80% of the newly generated coins are being minted in China..."No sir...I don't like it!!"

De-Centralization of power is the whole point behind bitcoin.  The fact that a single government could literally take control of well over half the network hashrate virtually overnight doesn't bode well imho.

It's a real shame that KnC just recently decided to file for bankruptcy.  If the only remaining players are all Chinese based the concentration of majority of hashing power will continue sadly.

[kano]

Sigh.
2 pointless replies above.

"Lets remove centralisation by using a centralised group of devs forcing a change ..."

The "centralised bitcoin devs" work based on who pays them.
No different to complaining about 2 people in china controlling 60-70% of bitcoin.

Trying to "force decentralisation" is not decentralisation, it's centralisation.

It's a peer-2-peer network.
The solution is, if you want to change it, then take part in it and do what you want with it.
Convince others to join your cause ...

no because it would have been done via consensus, not via forcing anything like you said, if the majority were in agreement to change the algo at the beginning

i can't see how this is more centralizated or even on par to the current mining centralization in china

unless you are telling me that the change for the block limit is "centralized as well", no-sense...

We had an over 70% implied vote for garzik to implement BIP100 ... but the bitcoin devs didn't want it so it never happened ... ... ... ...

[Oxylitl]

This is my opinion.......

Miners as a distinct group need to be removed from the equation. Mining needs to become a by-product of using of the Bitcoin system rather than the Bitcoin system being a by-product of mining, as it is now.

The three generals are still the only generals and they are now all sat in the same room. So who needs the messengers? (or the other two of the three generals?)

[kpitti]

This is my opinion.......

Miners as a distinct group need to be removed from the equation. Mining needs to become a by-product of using of the Bitcoin system rather than the Bitcoin system being a by-product of mining, as it is now.

The three generals are still the only generals and they are now all sat in the same room. So who needs the messengers? (or the other two of the three generals?)

I try to figure out what you want to express. If I undrestand well, then you proposing dramatic change and rather proposing new cryptocurrency. I undrestand that centralization can be a problem, but Bitcoin is stable long term thanks to definition which is kept. This is how Bitcoin is build - thanks Miners.

[Amph]

This is my opinion.......

Miners as a distinct group need to be removed from the equation. Mining needs to become a by-product of using of the Bitcoin system rather than the Bitcoin system being a by-product of mining, as it is now.

The three generals are still the only generals and they are now all sat in the same room. So who needs the messengers? (or the other two of the three generals?)

I try to figure out what you want to express. If I undrestand well, then you proposing dramatic change and rather proposing new cryptocurrency. I undrestand that centralization can be a problem, but Bitcoin is stable long term thanks to definition which is kept. This is how Bitcoin is build - thanks Miners.

maybe you can decentralized it via sidechain that can be mineable with gpu or other form of ancient mining, and still acquire token that can be directly converted in the blockchain in bitcoin, or something like that

just an half-assed idea for now, it may soun like altcoin, but it will be a bit different

[Oxylitl]

I try to figure out what you want to express. If I undrestand well, then you proposing dramatic change and rather proposing new cryptocurrency. I undrestand that centralization can be a problem, but Bitcoin is stable long term thanks to definition which is kept. This is how Bitcoin is build - thanks Miners.

What I want to express is that bitcoin isn't designed to be decentralized. It was foreseen that centralization was inevitable and the reason that it will centralize is because it has miners. It's a bit like Nazcar racing. Sure anyone can take part but it's dominated by specialist teams with huge amounts of resources and they will laugh at you when you enter your Chevrolet Impala.

There are 3 components of the bitcoin network (although Users and Full Nodes are not really different from a protocol perspective).

• The Miners
• Full nodes
• Users.

Miners can do all three, if they so desire, at no real extra cost because for a User you only need a no-cost, open source client. For a Full node you only need 64GB of storage (a few dollars) but mining is the only one that can make coins and police the protocol.

To make money in mining, you now need 10s of thousands of dollars of specialist hardware, industrial levels of electricity and a lot of ventilated space. These things all get cheaper with centralization and the double whammy is centralization increases your probability of getting the next block first.

The end result is that miners will utilize economies of scale and be bought out, forced out and assimilated until there is a cartel of data centers containing  full nodes and mining rigs, while everyone else has a client paying whatever fees the cartels dictate. Sound familiar?

The only way to prevent this is to remove miners as a group so there is no miner, full node or users - just users. And mining is a by-product of using the system. More users, more bitcoin mining occurs.That's not bitcoin, though.

[Oxylitl]

maybe you can decentralized it via sidechain that can be mineable with gpu or other form of ancient mining, and still acquire token that can be directly converted in the blockchain in bitcoin, or something like that

just an half-assed idea for now, it may soun like altcoin, but it will be a bit different

Then you end up with DASH which is just another cartel (developers) muscling in on the mining cartel because they weren't getting any of the pie.

[cloverme]

I'd say that the asic and centralization of mining in China has ruined the fun in mining as a hobby more so than caused any real issues for Bitcoin as a whole.  I'd love to see a change in the way Bitcoin is mined, sadly, I don't think we will ever see it, hence the rise and rise of the altcoin where mining is still viable. Mining was a way for people to get some bitcoins to help the community grow. You can't really do that any longer, if you mine and are on a PPS pool, you're pretty much getting dust unless you have some very serious equipment. I usually point people to solo.ckpool.org that want to mine for fun.