So with that being said. I present two scenarios
A:
IF Mass adoption* occurs then the centralized systems (or players) will consolidate their position "reducing incentive for other nodes"
thus the centralized system would become more centralized and 1-3 pools would be responsible for securing a network ~300x bigger than today. Not to mention the adoption would raise the price of a bitcoin and thus the incentive for an attack (51% or otherwise) on the centralized system.
B:
If Bitcoin were to "remain" true to Nakamoto's ideals, mass adoption could not occur. The sole reason bitcoin has grown in such a way is because miners constantly have incentive to secure the network(a comparatively small network). When the incentive disappears ("Halving") coupled with the consistent growth of ASICs, only the biggest miners will be able to continue securing the network, leading to the geographic centralization we spoke of. In the face of a crashing economy do you really think the government would allow an anonymous P2P system that completely undermines their control to be secured on it's soil?
I would dress this up and make it look pretty but im tired and just want opinions. My question is how can bitcoin sensible avoid these two scenarios? Soooo guys and gals fire away
*Mass adoption = Use by 20-30% of the globe.
A) Centralization is really inevitable, but it will be delayed with new technologies like the 21 inc mining chips or the 14 nm asic chips.
B) Nakamoto is not the ruler of bitcoin to adhere to his ideas, bitcoin will go where the community wants it. However there will be many principles that will be strongly enforced (21million btc, blocksize, conf time, network structure ,etc) anything else will probably change in 15 years.
But it always boils down to being trendy.
The mindless masses dont care about principles, they only care about trendy stuff.Can we make bitcoin trendy or not?