Bitcoin is a DELEGATED Proof of Work coin with very limited number of witnesses.

[dfd1]

Minig pools are witnesses. Miners are voting for these witnesses. There can't be more than some 10-20 active mining pools, or these pools would depend on luck heavily.  Limited blocks can be solved in a hour, so if 100 minig pools would compete for these blocks no predictable output can be calculated.
So users would stick to very limited number of top mining pools with predictable stable value output.
Minig pools form very limited, by protocol, number of witnesses. Bitcoin is a DELEGATED Proof of Work coin. And witnesses in full control of bitcoin, and miners with their hashing power now choose BU or BS WITNESSES to vote on a future improvements and transaction processing rules.
There is no and can't be, by Bitcoin protocol, any real decentralisation.

[Carlton Banks]

One could make the argument that technological development is the real impediment to decentralising mining, as until we have 3D printing of ASIC processors, the manufacturers of SHA256 ASICs can (as an effective cartel) gouge the market price they set to independent miners in order to corner the mining market.

It's a good thing then that 3D printed computer processors is desirable for that reason as well as so many others. Someone will innovate that.


Meanwhile, your hands are waving very fast; the amount of mining pools is higher than your upper bound of 20. And you're making a real confusion of the expression "witness", every full node is a witness, they all check signatures

(I can already hear the trolls retorts: "ZOMG, Segwit lets people choose to prune signatures from their full node, Segwit is a Delegated PoW takeover! YOINKS!")

[dfd1]

One could make the argument that technological development is the real impediment to decentralising mining, as until we have 3D printing of ASIC processors, the manufacturers of SHA256 ASICs can (as an effective cartel) gouge the market price to sell to independent miners in order to corner the mining market.

It's a good thing then that 3D printed computer processors is desirable for that reason as well as so many others. Someone will innovate that.


Meanwhile, your hands are waving very fast; the amount of mining pools is higher than your upper bound of 20.

No matter how much ASICs will be produced, it's still only one block in a 10 minutes. So, if one want to earn predictable amount of coins by mining process and not gamble with his ASIC the only option is minig on the pool with big share. There can't be more than 20 equal mining pools with some predictable result for a pool. Pool №21 can mine for a week, and pool №41 can mine for a month or even a year before some block can be solved on this pool.

[dfd1]

(I can already hear the trolls retorts: "ZOMG, Segwit lets people choose to prune signatures from their full node, Segwit is a Delegated PoW takeover! YOINKS!")

I'm pro SegWit actually, but it's already over, it was over from the very start when the first mining pool appeared. Satoshi original idea was a distributed "lottery" where people gamble with their power, and it's failed.

[Carlton Banks]

You're being very fatalistic. There is no reason to expect 3D processor printing not to happen, and there is no reason not to expect regular people to be incentivised to use it for SHA256 ASICs.

The mathematics that determines the number of viable pools or solo miners doesn't change as difficulty increases. You're basically making the "snapshot" fallacy; just because there are ~ 20 mining pools at this specific point in time, does not mean that number of pools is deterministic according to Bitcoin's design.


Difficulty increases linearly with hashrate, you're been drinking the FUD-Aid, it appears.


Edit ....and you're just repeating what has already been demonstrated false. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[dfd1]

You're being very fatalistic. There is no reason to expect 3D processor printing not to happen, and there is no reason not to expect regular people to be incentivised to use it for SHA256 ASICs.

The mathematics that determines the number of viable pools or solo miners doesn't change as difficulty increases. You're basically making the "snapshot" fallacy; just because there are ~ 20 mining pools at this specific point in time, does not mean that number of pools is deterministic according to Bitcoin's design.


Difficulty increases linearly with hashrate, you're been drinking the FUD-Aid, it appears.

This is just an illusion of decentralization, no matter how big difficulty is, there is still only one block in a 10 minutes, and users don't want to play decentralized lottery with solo mining while they can stick to some pool. Byteball or any DPOS heavily centralized coin differs only by the way they choose witnesses. PoW vote for witnesses with hashpower, but any decision would be made by a pool. And there is no way to get rid of these witnesses.

[hv_]

It's a known issue but hard pill to swallow and nice issue for any solution claimed to tend to less centralization.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.0

ETH is next to realize this, but still gamed high....

[dinofelis]

I'm pro SegWit actually, but it's already over, it was over from the very start when the first mining pool appeared. Satoshi original idea was a distributed "lottery" where people gamble with their power, and it's failed.

Indeed, from the moment that ASICS came out, it was over.  The idea was that node=user=miner.  However, Satoshi failed to understand that economies of scale will ALWAYS centralize PoW, or any other asset/resource dependent minting/mining.

Non-ASIC PoW currencies are still potentially somewhat decentralized, but as they are speculatively driven to the sky, it will become profitable too to make ASICS.  Litecoin understood the problem, but scrypt was too simple.  Cryptonight is holding out for the moment, but with the recent price rise in monero, sooner or later that will get centralized too. 

[Xester]

Minig pools are witnesses. Miners are voting for these witnesses. There can't be more than some 10-20 active mining pools, or these pools would depend on luck heavily.  Limited blocks can be solved in a hour, so if 100 minig pools would compete for these blocks no predictable output can be calculated.
So users would stick to very limited number of top mining pools with predictable stable value output.
Minig pools form very limited, by protocol, number of witnesses. Bitcoin is a DELEGATED Proof of Work coin. And witnesses in full control of bitcoin, and miners with their hashing power now choose BU or BS WITNESSES to vote on a future improvements and transaction processing rules.
There is no and can't be, by Bitcoin protocol, any real decentralisation.

There is no real decentralization in bitcoin. But decentralization in bitcoin has caused many problems on bitcoin like the problem on consensus. Without centralization constant debate will occur and we will never get to an answer. Thus it is painful to hear but we need to form an organize group just like a democratic association whose leaders will be chosen by votation. And those leaders will lead and give the way towards the solution and development of bitcoin.

[Carlton Banks]

Every single one of you is making the same mistake as the OP.


There is mining cartel right now, and it's not ideal. But this could last less than 5 years, technology doesn't stand still, and neither do the tools that are used to create technology.

If you want to sell your doomed-to-centralisation-forever BTC, I'M BUYING


So either sell, or start thinking with your brains instead of with your fear reflex. But I predict you'll all be here tomorrow, next week and next year, complaining about something else (and still HODL'ing)

[dinofelis]

There is no real decentralization in bitcoin. But decentralization in bitcoin has caused many problems on bitcoin like the problem on consensus. Without centralization constant debate will occur and we will never get to an answer. Thus it is painful to hear but we need to form an organize group just like a democratic association whose leaders will be chosen by votation. And those leaders will lead and give the way towards the solution and development of bitcoin.

Then use fiat.  It is done that way.
With voting comes misleading, with leadership comes corruption and regulation in the leadership's profit.

Voting is using the majority of idiots to extract wealth from the minority of smart people.  Decentralization allows a minority of smart people to take advantage of the majority of idiots.

Voting is turkeys voting for father x-mas.  Decentralisation is the wolves eating the sheep.

[dfd1]

If you want to sell your doomed-to-centralisation-forever BTC, I'M BUYING

You not denying centralization now, at least. Third party need to become "friends" only with 20 well known public businesses, major pools, to enforce their politics. Miners should constantly monitor witnesses/pools and check if these pools not trying to change rules covertly. Any anonymous/rebelling pool can be shut down by authorities like it was with megaupload and torrent trackers, only "good ones" would stay. So, if government, for example, want process only transactions from addresses registered with ID card because they want to save the children and protect consumers there is a way to do it.

[dinofelis]

If you want to sell your doomed-to-centralisation-forever BTC, I'M BUYING

You not denying centralization now, at least. Third party need to become "friends" only with 20 well known public businesses, major pools, to enforce their politics. Miners should constantly monitor witnesses/pools and check if these pools not trying to change rules covertly. Any anonymous/rebelling pool can be shut down by authorities like it was with megaupload and torrent trackers, only "good ones" would stay. So, if government, for example, want process only transactions from addresses registered with ID card because they want to save the children and protect consumers there is a way to do it.

You've got it.  Of course, one can say that pools can re-emerge in any country where those rules don't apply yet.  Pools are quickly set up, and undone.  They are essentially a small data centre.  So as long as there isn't a world government, pools can move - if they like.  Most probably, though, pools will eagerly collaborate with governments for LOCAL demands. In any case, transparent chains are problematic.

But what's more: hash resellers (those owning mining equipment, but not mining, that is, not making block chains; the labour of pools in other words) most probably are only interested in GAIN from the hashes they sell.  So higher fees to the POOLS (the miners) will not be voted away from the hash resellers, because it determines their gains ($ per hash sold to a pool).

So I don't see any pool, nor any hash reseller, be favourable for ANY releasing of the pressure on the fee market.  Why on earth would they ?

[dfd1]

But what's more: hash resellers (those owning mining equipment, but not mining, that is, not making block chains; the labour of pools in other words) most probably are only interested in GAIN from the hashes they sell.  So higher fees to the POOLS (the miners) will not be voted away from the hash resellers, because it determines their gains ($ per hash sold to a pool).

So I don't see any pool, nor any hash reseller, be favourable for ANY releasing of the pressure on the fee market.  Why on earth would they ?

Yep. What are they, enemies of the kids? Do they really hate consumer so much? They will mine with pleasure on controlled pools, because migrating to Sweden or tor is an unnecessary risk for their investment. The only thing they care is fees and block reward, after all.

[dinofelis]

Yep. What are they, enemies of the kids? Do they really hate consumer so much? They will mine with pleasure on controlled pools, because migrating to Sweden or tor is an unnecessary risk for their investment. The only thing they care is fees and block reward, after all.

Honestly, I'm not afraid of states or the police concerning bitcoin.  They like it, it is a transparent ledger.  Any idiot trying to do something with bitcoin that doesn't please the powers that be, will be simply found by looking at the chain.  Graving all your transactions in stone, visible to the world, is something that the powers that be just love.

But indeed, they only care about fees and block rewards, and that is why I tell you that the block size is not going to change, and that segwit will not come either.

None of those that can change this, have any advantage in doing so.

[digaran]

Yep. What are they, enemies of the kids? Do they really hate consumer so much? They will mine with pleasure on controlled pools, because migrating to Sweden or tor is an unnecessary risk for their investment. The only thing they care is fees and block reward, after all.

Honestly, I'm not afraid of states or the police concerning bitcoin.  They like it, it is a transparent ledger.  Any idiot trying to do something with bitcoin that doesn't please the powers that be, will be simply found by looking at the chain.  Graving all your transactions in stone, visible to the world, is something that the powers that be just love.

But indeed, they only care about fees and block rewards, and that is why I tell you that the block size is not going to change, and that segwit will not come either.

None of those that can change this, have any advantage in doing so.

Is that so? then I wonder where all those bitcoins are going after seeing their origin as 127.1.0.0 or the ones sent over to bitmixer and poof nothing to be found. either mixers doing a great job or government really suck at doing theirs.

[dinofelis]

Is that so? then I wonder where all those bitcoins are going after seeing their origin as 127.1.0.0 or the ones sent over to bitmixer and poof nothing to be found. either mixers doing a great job or government really suck at doing theirs.

Depends to whom bitmixer sells the log files of its servers...
You don't need IP addresses.  You need exchange identities to get entry and exit points, and follow on the chain.  Yes, mixers can obfuscate this, but in bitcoin, the mixers themselves know the mixing origins.  If this mixing software makes log files, the mixing can be undone.

[DannyHamilton]

- snip -
it's still only one block in a 10 minutes. So, if one want to earn predictable amount of coins by mining process and not gamble with his ASIC the only option is minig on the pool with big share. There can't be more than 20 equal mining pools with some predictable result for a pool. Pool №21 can mine for a week, and pool №41 can mine for a month or even a year before some block can be solved on this pool.

Nonsense.

The average is 144 blocks per day.  That means that bitcoin could have 144 equal sized (in terms of hash power) pools and they would all still earn a steady income.

Solo miners may be happy to mine without a pool if they solve a block on average once every 2000 blocks (once per difficulty adjustment), depending on how much they pay for the hardware and electricity.

[dfd1]

- snip -
it's still only one block in a 10 minutes. So, if one want to earn predictable amount of coins by mining process and not gamble with his ASIC the only option is minig on the pool with big share. There can't be more than 20 equal mining pools with some predictable result for a pool. Pool №21 can mine for a week, and pool №41 can mine for a month or even a year before some block can be solved on this pool.

Nonsense.

The average is 144 blocks per day.  That means that bitcoin could have 144 equal sized (in terms of hash power) pools and they would all still earn a steady income.

Solo miners may be happy to mine without a pool if they solve a block on average once every 2000 blocks (once per difficulty adjustment), depending on how much they pay for the hardware and electricity.

Wow, that a big game changer. So we have decentralized network of maximum 144 computers who solve all blocks forever. If all of them has same power. Solo miner today should mine for 1000 years to get a block.