stop blaming miners

[franky1]

Since the first ASICs came out we're witnessing a growing centralization of Bitcoin by mining industries. The pools are getting bigger, farms are getting bigger and the equipment is getting more expensive. That's what people are afraid of when looking in the near future. What if in 2 - 3 years it will all be in the hands of 2 big companies that will each have 35% of the network and the rest of us little people will have to accept whatever they come up with?

in 2013 there were only half a dozen pools... now well over 20 pools

[1714022382]

1714022382

[1714022382]

1714022382

[nethan1btc]

Yes we are not to blame miners because they are just earners like us who wanted good profit, so respect what perspective they have for their own good. Price will move as part of the economy system and yet demand versus supply will realky take effect of what had happening right now and price actually goes down as the current update shows.

[FandangledGizmo]

miners are already feeling the effects, if compromise is not reached they will have lots of bricks and debt

Exactly. The incentive system in BTC should actually kick into effect soon.

When Segwit was in the ascendancy BTC was hitting new highs and was resilient even after the ETF decline. As soon as BTU took the lead BTC has suffered. The market is speaking and is hitting miners where it hurts.

[franky1]

Yes we are not to blame miners because they are just earners like us who wanted good profit, so respect what perspective they have for their own good. Price will move as part of the economy system and yet demand versus supply will realky take effect of what had happening right now and price actually goes down as the current update shows.

pools just collate tx's (in an arrangement and block formation that NODES accept).
nodes can reject any invalid block arrangement which literally makes pools not get paid. so pools are not going to do foolish things.
secondly the exchanges set the bitcoin price based on users decision of value.

users can decide that bitcoin has less price value and as such pools acceptable block earnings lose fiat price value. so again pools are not going to do anything to hurt their income.

dont blame pools because they are not kissing blockstreams ass.
pools are 72% veto/abstaining from segwit because of many factors.
1. the node count is not sufficient to cover any orphan risk or consensus protection.
2. not all the merchant services are sold on the idea of segwit
3. segwit itself is not 100% fix. and it has many empty promises it cant hope to realistically achieve.
4. segwit turns the node network into a TIER network not a PEER network

[franky1]

miners are already feeling the effects, if compromise is not reached they will have lots of bricks and debt

Exactly. The incentive system in BTC should actually kick into effect soon.

When Segwit was in the ascendancy BTC was hitting new highs and was resilient even after the ETF decline. As soon as BTU took the lead BTC has suffered. The market is speaking and is hitting miners where it hurts.

segwit made many promises from late 2015. but now people are seeing the holes. and realising something else is needed because segwit is not as utopian as promised.

[jonald_fyookball]

Sorry but I reject your idea that there is such thing as a mining cartel.

Miners control the hashing.  Users control the economics. 
 

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

Sorry but I reject your idea that there is such thing as a mining cartel.

Miners control the hashing.  Users control the economics. 
 

Exactly, and the hashing is critical to the security of the network.

The miners provide an important service, but they are paid in Bitcoin for that service and it would be foolish of them to reduce their pay by driving users away.

[iamnotback]

Miners control the hashing.  Users control the economics.  

The users can only control by killing Bitcoin by selling it. Otherwise they control nothing in face of (and would be slaves to) a 51% attack which can change the protocol at-will such as increasing the number of coins to 1 billion or what ever.

Please stay on the facts.

And don't try to argue that the miners would never do that and that they have no incentive to do that, because they need the coins to be worth something. If that was stopping them, then they wouldn't be attacking now. Obviously inflation never stopped anyone from using fiat. In short, they can raise fees to any level they think the market will bear. They can mint coins at a faster rate when they need to, etc..

They will be able to manipulate the exchanges at-will by doing shenanigans when ever they want to short the price, etc..

You simply can't have a currency with a controller that is not benevolent. And the BU Chinaman has said that hashrate is a like an army and must be employed in a 51% attack to block all transactions on and to kill the minority chain.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

Miners control the hashing.  Users control the economics. 

The users only control killing Bitcoin by selling it. Otherwise they control nothing in face of a 51% attack.

Please stay on the facts.

The facts are the value of Bitcoin plummets when users no longer see it as meeting their needs. Supply of bitcoin remains but the demand plummets.

Those are the facts you repeatedly like to try to use fancy words to distract from.

[Killerpotleaf]

Miners control the hashing.  Users control the economics.  

The users only control by killing Bitcoin by selling it. Otherwise they control nothing in face of (and would be slaves to) a 51% attack which can change the protocol at-will such as increasing the number of coins to 1 billion or what ever.

Please stay on the facts.

i side with the core guys on this issue
users control a whole lot more than price.
users empowered by a dev team can pow chance, hell can change anything they can all agree too and let the miners go.
miners APPEAR incontrol, simply because the are incentivized by users to do what the users want them to do.
if BU is to be 100% successful, it need to capture a majority of users as well as miners. ( its not happening this month ill tell you that )

miners moving against the will of the majority of users is suicide

[European Central Bank]

The users only control by killing Bitcoin by selling it.

and there ain't nothing more powerful and final than that.

users only have so much tolerance for all this crap. sometime soon unless some progress is made all these cartels will be cartels of nothing.

[iamnotback]

Miners control the hashing.  Users control the economics.  

The users only control killing Bitcoin by selling it. Otherwise they control nothing in face of a 51% attack.

Please stay on the facts.

The facts are the value of Bitcoin plummets when users no longer see it as meeting their needs. Supply of bitcoin remains but the demand plummets.

Those are the facts you repeatedly like to try to use fancy words to distract from.

Bitcoin is dying no matter what. You are just repeating what I (or one of the numerous clones of myself) warned in 2013, 2014, and especially 2015.

There is no possible solution.

Centralization is centralization. Game over. Checkmate.

It is only a matter of how long it takes to separate some fools from their money. That is what centralization enables. If they can get enough fools to believe, then Bitcon(niving) can go on a while longer before the end comes.

Even if MPeX wins, he is deluding himself. A centralized system is not anti-fragile per his own math which I showed.

[jonald_fyookball]

Bitcoin is dying no matter what. You are just repeating what I warned in 2013, 2014,  especially 2015

There is no possible solution.

Centralization is centralization. Game over. Checkmate.
 

And what value do you think you are providing by repeating this year after year? 

What should I do?  Sell all my coins and move to Timbuctu?  What are you suggesting?

[iamnotback]

If Core had compromised then we perhaps could have continued with the illusion of decentralization for a while longer.

I don't know what happens now. Perhaps fireworks. MPeX promised to wreck havoc if ever miners attempt to create 20 MB blocks. I don't know if he still thinks he can keep that threat.

Maybe they will really follow through with a new PoW hash and MPeX (aka Mircea Popescu) spending some of his $billions (he had at least 750,000 BTC years ago and accumulating $100k per day, and sold 250,000 BTC in 2016 for "cash" which perhaps is that kept the price down) to mine all the coins on the new PoW hash and bankrupt the Chinese mining cartel. The Chinaman said 200 million yuan required which is only $29 million. Thats small money for MPeX. He earned more than that on the DAO hack.

I expect something crazy may happen soon. Stay tuned.

The Chinamen + BU don't seem too smart. I think they are going to get their ass kicked perhaps. We'll see.

So if MPeX can bankrupt the mining cartel, then what happens is a new form of immutability with MPeX as the BDFL. That is MPeX promises to always protect small blocks. And Core promises to change the PoW hash if any mining cartel tries to violate this.

Did I mention that Bitcoin is centralized?

I think MPeX is behind this standoff perhaps. Or maybe other banksters. Perhaps the miners are going to own ASIC doorstops soon.

This is a high stakes power struggle and we are just onlookers. The people with big money will decide. We will follow.

Likely the BTC price will go before the dusts settles and it can rise again after we have a victor in the coming hashrate war. As I always said, Satoshi's PoW is a winner-take-all power vacuum. They must fight and there can only be one winner. Compromise is not an option where there exists a power vacuum, because power enabling vested interests are mutually conflicting.

[Lauda]

ok, curious to know from where does this rule come from?
I thought users take the decision independently and then based on those decisions consensus is formed, never knew the consensus was formed first and then users need to support the consensus.
Are we now making everything up as we go,  POW/ consensus system/ what next?

Carlton has explained this more or less, so I need not give much input there. If anyone is trying to redefine consensus, then it is the BTU fanatics. They take 1 quote from the whitepaper, and claim 51% hashrate = Bitcoin. This is because they have a very tiny minority of users supporting them.
This is the future:

BitFury just mined a block with a "BIP 148" (=UASF-SegWit) tag

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/61cm5v/bitfury_just_mined_a_block_with_a_bip_148/

[AngryDwarf]

All this talk of PoW change to 'fire' the current miners for not agreeing with the centralised software proposal is using 'greed to fight greed'.

Some people think great, now all there asics have been obsoleted, I can now try to find blocks on my home PC hardware! Some people will get lucky, but most will find nothing until a new cartel of mining pools is quickly formed before they find a block.

So greed is being used an enticement of fight the greed of envy.

Personally, I'm buying shares in cuckoo clock manufacturers. I here the cuckoo cycle is being touted as a possible new PoW mechanism.

[chixka000]

Free local miners agreed not to be blamed because after all they are a small time miners. However there were really obvious companies trying to take advantage and abusing the technology by gaining its poweer

[Amph]

no jonald

Mining centralisation is entirely a result of the companies selling miners taking advantage of their specialist manufacturer status. It's too expensive for a regular entrepreneurs to compete with these outfits, and even if they could, they need access to another limited resource: processor fabrication plants (which is also a politicised just oligopoly like the Bitcoin miner business is)


Miners aren't to blame, the mining monopolists are. The only way to break that monopoly is to change the technology so that the mining market becomes easy to enter. We must change the PoW algorithm to something that can't be easily made into a specialist processor, to lower the barrier to entry in the mining market.

this si a bit hard to do, any coins with a marketcap of bitcoin, will eventually attract asic, like bee to honey, hard memory algo can be a good deterrent but eventually they will make an asic for that too

so the only solution here is to change the algo constantly before the next asic come like vertcoin did, but changing the algo so many times mean everytime an hardfork, perhaps a bit too much...

[AngryDwarf]

so the only solution here is to change the algo constantly before the next asic come like vertcoin did, but changing the algo so many times mean everytime an hardfork, perhaps a bit too much...

But what happens to the hard forks are dangerous mantra?

[CraigWrightBTC]

Sorry but I reject your idea that there is such thing as a mining cartel.

Miners control the hashing.  Users control the economics. 
 

I agree with you bitcoin will not run without the miners to secure the network
in my opinions the miners be blamed because
there are some people who want control what must be done the miners
based​ on their want, I think they are trying bitcoin become centralization.