Didn't satoshi predict the chinese mining monopoly?

[thejaytiesto]

If I was as smart as satoshi, I imagine myself thinking about what my project is and how it can evolve overtime.

I think if I was smart enough to create bitcoin, I would have also predicted that mining would become an arms race and everyone would go insane trying to get as much hashing power as possible. I would have thought about how specialized hardware would be developed. And most importantly: I would have thought about who would be on the best spot possible (resources + cheap electricity). I think it is clear that china was going to end up on top because of the simple fact that they got the cheapest electricity. And with this, few entities would be able to block further updates.

So what we have now is a problem called Jihan Wu, taking everyone else hostage because he has a mining monopoly (I think this guy owns more than 50% of hashing power). We have literal idiots shaping the outcome of bitcoin, they can't think beyond how much money they will make. Of course this should have been expected too, what did you expect? mining is a business. So now we have a majority of people running nodes wanting segwit, and a single guy with 50%+ of mining power blocking it, and also of course, pushing for BU which would give miners even more power (also promoted by the useful idiot Roger Ver and the delusional morons that think BUcoin has no nasty tradeoffs and can't think beyond "cheap, fast, more transactions = we get rich = awesome"). They are simply incapable of considering the tradeoffs and understanding game theory, and I repeat: one of those guys owns 50%+ of mining power.

Now this UASF thing pops up. In practice it sounds good, miners are our employees, and 1 cpu = 1 vote via nodes. But wouldn't it be a CPU race all over again? A bad actor with enough resources can buy an huge building and fill it with computers running whatever software node they want in order to shape the network in the way they want it to be. If they get a big %, it may trigger the rest of the network to follow due sheep mentality/fear.

Also, you are forgetting that nonetheless, this guy owns 50%+ of hashing power and it could result in a very tricky situation where you got a majority of nodes wanting X, and a majority of hashing rate wanting Y. In what direction will the balance gravitate towards? It's a gamble.

Maybe im missing something but I don't see how UASF can solve the problems described above. Again: Big pocket actors can start node farms if running nodes become the main thing to call the shots. And if we leave it as it is, this fucker Jihan got the mining monopoly.

I don't see a clear outcome. Maybe bitcoin will remain as it is forever? That would certainty be a better outcome than it getting ruined in the process. At least we got gold 2.0. I wish we could have a global, fast, cheap, fungible, decentralized currency with VISA-tier onchain transactions too, but I don't see how we can achieve this goal. BUcoin is a scam, and LN would still need segwit in order to function at 100% and even if it is the best option we can aim for, it still posses certain problems I don't see clear yet.

Anyway, discuss.

[1715023303]

1715023303

[AgentofCoin]

...
I don't see a clear outcome. Maybe bitcoin will remain as it is forever? That would certainty be a better outcome than it getting ruined in the process. At least we got gold 2.0. I wish we could have a global, fast, cheap, fungible, decentralized currency with VISA-tier onchain transactions too, but I don't see how we can achieve this goal. BUcoin is a scam, and LN would still need segwit in order to function at 100% and even if it is the best option we can aim for, it still posses certain problems I don't see clear yet.

Anyway, discuss.

IMO, UASF is too risky to attempt.

What is important to keep in mind is that even if Bitcoin remains unchanged forever,
even SegWit SF will not be enough to facilitate LN fully. For LN to work properly, it will need
a blocksize increase in the future so that channel openings and closures can all settle within
the time allotted. LN will help with instant txs and higher tps, but it needs more than 1MB
settlement space eventually.

So some community members who think never changing Bitcoin's protocol ever again is a
great/correct/moral idea, are actually short term speculative investors who are incentivized
to cause a blockage between the two sides, so that they can bail at the highest price possible
while also leaving the network crippled forever. They don't care about what makes Bitcoin
special (everything other than the price), they only see it as a simple financial instrument to
be used and abused.

The truth is that Bitcoin needs to balance over time. Stop with the extremes already.
It is the middle path or we all lose (except for the most malicious of the community).

[Iranus]

Satoshi may well have predicted it but are there any decent solutions?  The concept of mining is what makes Bitcoin so decentralised and clever, and the natural deflation of halving is what makes people want to invest.  Unfortunately the only real solution I can think of is mining without expecting profit, which isn't something that I expect to happen on a mass scale out of the good of people's hearts.

It's definitely annoying though that Wu won't accept SegWit - I recognise that people have some legitimate reasons for opposing it but Bitcoin is in need of a solution and a huge amount of Bitcoin miners are in favour of it.

I would like to know where this repeated idea that Wu owns over 50% of the mining power came from - you're probably right but I'm not sure where you got it from.

[franky1]

So what we have now is a problem called Jihan Wu, taking everyone else hostage because he has a mining monopoly (I think this guy owns more than 50% of hashing power). We have literal idiots shaping the outcome of bitcoin, they can't think beyond how much money they will make. Of course this should have been expected too, what did you expect? mining is a business. So now we have a majority of people running nodes wanting segwit, and a single guy with 50%+ of mining power blocking it, and also of course, pushing for BU which would give miners even more power (also promoted by the useful idiot Roger Ver and the delusional morons that think BUcoin has no nasty tradeoffs and can't think beyond "cheap, fast, more transactions = we get rich = awesome"). They are simply incapable of considering the tradeoffs and understanding game theory, and I repeat: one of those guys owns 50%+ of mining power.

1. X pools vote for segwit X vote for BU........... but 60% are undecided either way

2. pools are not the boss. they are secretaries.. NODES are the boss.. and devs are just employees. if pools do something nodes dont like. into the orphan trashcan(metaphorically) goes the secretaries work

3. its blockstream that want to halt onchain natural growth with their empty gesture of broken promise. purely to get their nodes as upstream filters and centralise the network so they cn control what transactions get to and from the pools.

4. its blockstream that have done the fee war tweaks to the code to try to push it further and get people to cry out for the need of LN, purely so they can grab fee's to repay their VC. blockstream are in DEBT to a tune of $70-90mill.. they are getting desparate to make income to make investor returns.

Now this UASF thing pops up. In practice it sounds good, miners are our employees, and 1 cpu = 1 vote via nodes. But wouldn't it be a CPU race all over again? A bad actor with enough resources can buy an huge building and fill it with computers running whatever software node they want in order to shape the network in the way they want it to be. If they get a big %, it may trigger the rest of the network to follow due sheep mentality/fear.

Also, you are forgetting that nonetheless, this guy owns 50%+ of hashing power and it could result in a very tricky situation where you got a majority of nodes wanting X, and a majority of hashing rate wanting Y. In what direction will the balance gravitate towards? It's a gamble.

Maybe im missing something but I don't see how UASF can solve the problems described above. Again: Big pocket actors can start node farms if running nodes become the main thing to call the shots. And if we leave it as it is, this fucker Jihan got the mining monopoly.

yep its just relaunching the pool marathon again

I don't see a clear outcome. Maybe bitcoin will remain as it is forever? That would certainty be a better outcome than it getting ruined in the process. At least we got gold 2.0. I wish we could have a global, fast, cheap, fungible, decentralized currency with VISA-tier onchain transactions too, but I don't see how we can achieve this goal. BUcoin is a scam, and LN would still need segwit in order to function at 100% and even if it is the best option we can aim for, it still posses certain problems I don't see clear yet.

Anyway, discuss.

you mention the VISA-tier blah.... seriously. your talking as if its a visa by midnight doomsday.
be rational we wont get a billion users over night. think logically and rationally about NATURAL growth. and ofcourse dont use the growth as a foolish reason to be against growth. as thats illogical
(illogic: dont grow blockchain because blockchain needs to grow)
(illogic: lets go back to 1996 and tell activision to not work on project: call of duty, because COD:MW needs 60gb but 1996 hard drives are 4gb)

[MellowYellow14]

I believe he did in fact predict the mining monopolies. Its going to happen in all manufacturing from now on.

[cellard]

...
I don't see a clear outcome. Maybe bitcoin will remain as it is forever? That would certainty be a better outcome than it getting ruined in the process. At least we got gold 2.0. I wish we could have a global, fast, cheap, fungible, decentralized currency with VISA-tier onchain transactions too, but I don't see how we can achieve this goal. BUcoin is a scam, and LN would still need segwit in order to function at 100% and even if it is the best option we can aim for, it still posses certain problems I don't see clear yet.

Anyway, discuss.

IMO, UASF is too risky to attempt.

What is important to keep in mind is that even if Bitcoin remains unchanged forever,
even SegWit SF will not be enough to facilitate LN fully. For LN to work properly, it will need
a blocksize increase in the future so that channel openings and closures can all settle within
the time allotted. LN will help with instant txs and higher tps, but it needs more than 1MB
settlement space eventually.

So some community members who think never changing Bitcoin's protocol ever again is a
great/correct/moral idea, are actually short term speculative investors who are incentivized
to cause a blockage between the two sides, so that they can bail at the highest price possible
while also leaving the network crippled forever. They don't care about what makes Bitcoin
special (everything other than the price), they only see it as a simple financial instrument to
be used and abused.

The truth is that Bitcoin needs to balance over time. Stop with the extremes already.
It is the middle path or we all lose (except for the most malicious of the community).

All Bitcoin Core developers want to increase the blocksize, the problem is we have people blocking segwit which is stupid. Segwit makes blocksize increases safer, so lets get segwit going, then blocksize increase later on.

What is clear is, BU will not succeed because it just doesn't work.

[magemist]

I believe he did in fact predict the mining monopolies. Its going to happen in all manufacturing from now on.

He is Japanese after all!
He dispieses the Chinese!

[cengsuwuei]

this now volume transaction in china exchanger not bigest and not monopoly and control bitcoin price
in china exchanger bitcoin price is lowest another exchanger
in 2016 volume transaction in china exchanger is very big, because use fake transaction

[MellowYellow14]

Bitcoin mining is a monopoly and will soon look like the current financial industry with only a few banks globally controlling everything.

[SvenBomvolen]

Bitcoin mining is a monopoly and will soon look like the current financial industry with only a few banks globally controlling everything.

Bitcoin mining is not a monopoly. Yes, the biggest number of miners in China, but there is many other countries where people made bitcoin mining as their work or business.

[franky1]

All Bitcoin Core developers want to increase the blocksize, the problem is we have people blocking segwit which is stupid. Segwit makes blocksize increases safer, so lets get segwit going, then blocksize increase later on.

it doesnt.
quadratic spam WILL still occur after activation of segwit.

segwit only disarms people who move funds to segwit keys.. segwit does not disarm the network from quadratic spam.. just the users who voluntarily use sgwit keys.
malicious spammers will just stick to native keys. meaning blocks can still be quadraticly spammed.

the real fix is limiting transaction sigops.
analogy: taking guns away from innocent people does not make gangsters stop doing drive-by's

What is clear is, BU will not succeed because it just doesn't work.

the fake narrative of how dynamics work in blockstreamers scripts is not the reality of how dynamic blocks will work. blockstreamers have their scripts purely like religion has their bible. to get people to not think for themselves and instead seek guidance from a cultish leader preaching to his flock.

pleas open your mind and do your own research beyond the 30 second elevator sales pitches of blockstream scripts.. its becoming too obvious

[European Central Bank]

he did predict data centres carrying the heavy lifting.

I don't think he foresaw mining pools and I really don't think he envisaged things becoming so centralised so quickly.

I'm not sure there's any coming back from it either. humans naturally want someone else to do the hard work.

[franky1]

he did predict data centres carrying the heavy lifting.

I don't think he foresaw mining pools and I really don't think he envisaged things becoming so centralised so quickly.

I'm not sure there's any coming back from it either. humans naturally want someone else to do the hard work.

2012 there was only like half a dozen pools... now there are over 20.

only difference is majority in the past were american. and now majority spread out across the world.
yep even the ones people think are 'chinese' actually have farms in georgia, mongolia, sanfran, thailand and iceland

[BillyBobZorton]

There is no easy way out.

BU is something no one should trust to keep their digital gold safely long term. The team just isn't cut for it, the software is not up to the required standards.

UASF is too reckless in my book, still we don't rid of the cancer called Jihan Wu.

And if we stay as we are, bitcoin will never become a viable currency.

Mmm yeah, I think we are trapped into the current version of bitcoin.
 

[bravehearth0319]

Bitcoin mining is a monopoly and will soon look like the current financial industry with only a few banks globally controlling everything.

Bitcoin mining is not a monopoly. Yes, the biggest number of miners in China, but there is many other countries where people made bitcoin mining as their work or business.

Indeed, I agreed on what you said. All around the the planet majority of the biggest company in the world of business they adapted bitcoin for business purposes, and others are for job still there are prevailing on this things.