Ladies and Gentlemen, Bitcoin is about to be Centralized

[yeswepump]

Maybe the fight within core team and miners will bring to some crazy decision supported by bank/governs. However, despite the Bitcoin brand is rather strong, people will not be so stupid and if Bitcoin will loose its basic ideas and priciples, another blockchain with more privacy will take the place...

 

[1714968169]

1714968169

[1714968169]

1714968169

[1714968169]

1714968169

[Cuber Krypton]

"While some people can buy all the ASICS in the world and others can't Bitcoin will be centralized".

This idea of decentralization is getting close to resembling communism.

If ever Bitcoin's efficiency gets pegged to the least efficient participant in order not to leave him behind, he will just be holding it back. Welcome to the Free Market. Please don't turn Bitcoin into Welfare State.

Set up a fund for small time miners and finance them yourself if you wish. But make it a personal choice. Do not apply some broad tax so that others can pursue their inefficient endeavors.

There is no incentive for Centralization. There is just playing with power where no power can be had. Users can choose to value what they will, unlike the banking system, your are not forced through any inefficient hoops here. 

Do not worry about these end of the world scenarios.

If your end goal is to get value in USD, which is pretty shortsighted, then by all means subsidize inefficient miners at the cost of everyone. You will get your value in Dollars for sure with all the excitement, but you will cutoff Bitcoin for what it could truly represent.

[Arumi.Bilqis]

No one would agree with that idea since it's obvious that it's centralized/controlled and i'm sure bitcoiner will completely ignore this idea. Also, the idea to centralize bitcoin by bankers/government is nothing new.
I think the real threat is miners power over bitcoin consensus/scaling and we've seen the impact, block size is still 1mb while tx fee keep rising that make few bitcoiner move to altcoin.

I hope bitcoiner ignores the idea

[arlene05973]

No one should bother their pretty head's about the so-called bank or trap investment because bitcoin was created with vision of an uncentralized/uncentralizable currency in mind !!


Anywhere, Thanks for pointing out such articles

[buwaytress]

Actually, even in the worst-case scenario where the world's (current) strongest economy bans Bitcoin, it will do little to affect the network - at least not beyond an inconsequential blip of time. The US knows its economy will soon be displaced by that of China anyway and lagging behind in crypto is just another nail in their coffin.

[deisik]

"While some people can buy all the ASICS in the world and others can't Bitcoin will be centralized".

This idea of decentralization is getting close to resembling communism.

If ever Bitcoin's efficiency gets pegged to the least efficient participant in order not to leave him behind, he will just be holding it back. Welcome to the Free Market. Please don't turn Bitcoin into Welfare State

I severely disagree with this approach

Basically, you are extending the idea of communism (universal equality) to spheres where it is not applicable and then proceeding to conclude that this is not good just because communism itself was a bad idea. The falseness of such approach is very easy to show. You might know that one of the money qualities (which any money token should possess by definition to be called money) is fungibility, i.e. an interchangeability of one money token (let's say, 1 bitcoin) with all other such money tokens. In other words, all money tokens are born equal. But this is an example of most intrepid communism out there (according to your reasoning), so why should we turn the money tokens into a "Welfare State"? This is the same with miners, their mission is purely utilitarian, and so anything which helps fulfill it should be considered as good. Therefore if making all miners equal contributes to this mission, it should get done. Miners are there not to earn profits, they are to confirm transactions. And if earning profits gets in the way of their job (as it does nowadays), the system should be revamped to make it actually serve its purpose

[South Park]

"Regulators Needs the Blockchain Master Key" — Morgan Stanley
http://internetmarketing.freedombucks.ws/morgan-stanley-regulators-need-the-blockchain-master-keys-3/

Insecured Elites are about to takeover the Blockchain. It's more like few people taking over the Internet.
For the first time in my life I am very terrified of our future. This people are not government, I know what they are capable of. They claim that regulating the New Internet (Blockchain) will increase the price of Bitcoin, this is a big lie.
 
Why are you not worried brothers? . How can you create a beautiful technology only for a few dangerous people to hijack it.
The people we are about to entrust the Blockchain network on are capable of wiping out a whole community. They are dangerous people.
Wake up everybody, we are about to be enslaved. Wake up.

I’m not worried, even if they were successful in their attempts to control bitcoin, we can move to another cryptocurrency in the instant they become the owners of bitcoin, at the moment most of the people in bitcoin are enthusiast, the average person has not adopted bitcoin, so I think it is too soon for them to make a move since they run the risk of losing their grip by people deciding to move to another blockchain.

[bitcoinvestor]

Maybe the fight within core team and miners will bring to some crazy decision supported by bank/governs. However, despite the Bitcoin brand is rather strong, people will not be so stupid and if Bitcoin will loose its basic ideas and priciples, another blockchain with more privacy will take the place...

 

I agree with you but when there are new coins with more privacy, are the coins accepted by exchanger to change with fiat?. Recently, most exchanger that accept exchanging to fiat only accept bitcoin. Fews exchanger accept eth. When bitcoin communities turn to altcoins , will the altcoins will be as big as bitcoin? I think when bitcoin is being centralized , it is a big problem for bitcoin communities.

[Cuber Krypton]

"While some people can buy all the ASICS in the world and others can't Bitcoin will be centralized".

This idea of decentralization is getting close to resembling communism.

If ever Bitcoin's efficiency gets pegged to the least efficient participant in order not to leave him behind, he will just be holding it back. Welcome to the Free Market. Please don't turn Bitcoin into Welfare State

I severely disagree with this approach

Basically, you are extending the idea of communism (universal equality) to spheres where it is not applicable and then proceeding to conclude that this is not good just because communism itself was a bad idea. The falseness of such approach is very easy to show. You might know that one of the money qualities (which any money token should possess by definition to be called money) is fungibility, i.e. an interchangeability of one money token (let's say, 1 bitcoin) with all other such money tokens. In other words, all money tokens are born equal. But this is an example of most intrepid communism out there (according to your reasoning), so why should we turn the money tokens into a "Welfare State"? This is the same with miners, their mission is purely utilitarian, and so anything which helps fulfill it should be considered as good. Therefore if making all miners equal contributes to this mission, it should get done. Miners are there not to earn profits, they are to confirm transactions. And if earning profits gets in the way of their job (as it does nowadays), the system should be revamped to make it actually serve its purpose

I don't totally follow your reasoning.

Anyhow, all tokens are created equal. This is not communism.

All effort is not created equal. Efficient effort is rewarded vs inefficient one. Communism equalizes it forcefully. It incentivizes you to spend the least effort possible to get the same rewards.

Everything is utilitarian, otherwise it would have no use or value. But everything costs resources. That is why if you need this work, it needs to be rewarded, if you don't, it needs to be punished.

Because I believe that utility and Hashrate are the real non speculative value behind Bitcoin, I do not wish that a subsidy be created to reward the effort of less efficient miners. This is like saying everyone should be able to run an electricity company and that everyone was by Law entitled to profit from it. What incentive is there for a better Utility?

People will always dream of receiving a share of the work of others. It never ends up well. But this is their choice. Just fork a Proof of Work change in those terms. I am pretty sure you would get a lot of followers. Not sure if the result would be better without efficient Miner backing though.

  

[Makka]

Maybe the fight within core team and miners will bring to some crazy decision supported by bank/governs. However, despite the Bitcoin brand is rather strong, people will not be so stupid and if Bitcoin will loose its basic ideas and priciples, another blockchain with more privacy will take the place...

 

Infighting is really a serious threat to such a thing as bitcoin, considering that they are basically the ones controlling the system behind it. In this regard, fiat monetary system is basically more stable and has solid grounds as they are regulated by laws and not just several people.

But as a radical invention in response to the existing banking and financial principles, this will not easily crumble down. A certain crypto may do but others of essentially the same kind will be born.

[Sadlife]

This dumb bankers is just worried that there fiat currency might become obsolete by turning people away from it. They said they needs the master key for what? What do they mean that they need the visibility of transactions?
The transactions can be seen in the blockchain ledger, i guess what they need is more than that. What they need is personal information on who's sending the transaction to put them behind bars. They dont even know why the price is still rising. The answer is simple because bitcoin is freedom.

[Cuber Krypton]

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. - Wing Commander IV

[deisik]

"While some people can buy all the ASICS in the world and others can't Bitcoin will be centralized".

This idea of decentralization is getting close to resembling communism.

If ever Bitcoin's efficiency gets pegged to the least efficient participant in order not to leave him behind, he will just be holding it back. Welcome to the Free Market. Please don't turn Bitcoin into Welfare State

I severely disagree with this approach

Basically, you are extending the idea of communism (universal equality) to spheres where it is not applicable and then proceeding to conclude that this is not good just because communism itself was a bad idea. The falseness of such approach is very easy to show. You might know that one of the money qualities (which any money token should possess by definition to be called money) is fungibility, i.e. an interchangeability of one money token (let's say, 1 bitcoin) with all other such money tokens. In other words, all money tokens are born equal. But this is an example of most intrepid communism out there (according to your reasoning), so why should we turn the money tokens into a "Welfare State"? This is the same with miners, their mission is purely utilitarian, and so anything which helps fulfill it should be considered as good. Therefore if making all miners equal contributes to this mission, it should get done. Miners are there not to earn profits, they are to confirm transactions. And if earning profits gets in the way of their job (as it does nowadays), the system should be revamped to make it actually serve its purpose

I don't totally follow your reasoning.

Anyhow, all tokens are created equal. This is not communism.

All effort is not created equal. Efficient effort is rewarded vs inefficient one. Communism equalizes it forcefully. It incentivizes you to spend the least effort possible to get the same rewards.

Everything is utilitarian, otherwise it would have no use or value. But everything costs resources. That is why if you need this work, it needs to be rewarded, if you don't, it needs to be punished.

Because I believe that utility and Hashrate are the real non speculative value behind Bitcoin, I do not wish that a subsidy be created to reward the effort of less efficient miners. This is like saying everyone should be able to run an electricity company and that everyone was by Law entitled to profit from it. What incentive is there for a better Utility?

You don't get it, absolutely

First, I'm not saying that all coins created equal is communism. This was only to show you how false your approach is. Further, you don't understand what the word utilitarian means in this context. In the given context it means serving for achieving particular end, so if something doesn't help in reaching it (or even gets in the way), it is either non-utilitarian or even anti-utilitarian (for this specific purpose). This is not about free market versus communism dichotomy at all. It is about whether something is utilitarian or more (less) utilitarian for a given purpose. Miners as such play only utilitarian function (whether you like it or not), that of confirming transactions (and generating new coins). The whole thing is certainly not about them earning profits, it is not the purpose of mining. Beyond that purpose they are useless. If you proceed with this understanding, you will likely see my point

[Cuber Krypton]

You don't get it, absolutely

First, I'm not saying that all coins created equal is communism. This was only to show you how false your approach is. Further, you don't understand what the word utilitarian means in this context. In the given context it means serving for achieving particular end, so if something doesn't help in reaching it (or even gets in the way), it is either non-utilitarian or even anti-utilitarian (for this specific purpose). This is not about free market versus communism dichotomy at all. It is about whether something is utilitarian or more (less) utilitarian for a given purpose. Miners as such play only utilitarian function (whether you like it or not), that of confirming transactions (and generating new coins). The whole thing is certainly not about them earning profits, it is not the purpose of mining. Beyond that purpose they are useless. If you proceed with this understanding, you will likely see my point

Profit is the incentive to fulfill their purpose, or utility. You surely recognize this.

Unless you forcefully want all miners to behave as NGOs. I postulate this would devalue Bitcoin as well as taxing all miners.

On the other hand, if you want small miners to have a chance to profit, your argument is valid against said miners as well. This would imply a broad tax over all users on the value of Bitcoin because of less efficient mining.

The only other possibility is that you would like that everyone is an independent miner. This is forcefully making people invest in something for which they might not have the initial resources anyway, since if everyone mines individually, variance can make it that you actually don't see any profit for a long time. It's effectively a lottery you would be implementing.

This is not the way a sound economy works.

As for Proof of Stake. You would be diverting rewards from Energy into Capital. This is the way FIAT works.

[Amph]

i don't think they understand that soemthing like this would probably take an hard fork, which will never happen, because you can't access the data they want to access regularly, and there is no implementation of it in the code

therefore it's not feasible, another delusional dream from bankers and government, like the one of creating their own altcoin in the fiat-esque, with nothing more than added centralization, with the same purpose as the original fiat

[Ndlongap Ndlongop]

I think not, bitcoin is decentralized because each user can control the bitcoin (not in monopoly). If centralized of course bitcoin can controlling by 1 person or institution.

[lovesybitz]

They've been wanting to control it for years, that is nothing new. If you think they stand a chance of succeeding, watch what is going to happen with Jihan Wu's MASF for he's announcing for August in response to BIP148. If the dominant miner can't control Bitcoin (and I expect his effort to fail spectacularly), what chance to a clueless bunch of bankers with no miners have?

Agreed on You sir Legendary, this not new for me also in fact, its been a years that there somebody announcing it were bitcoin will become
centralize. Which is not going to be happen and for sure many of the community of bitcoin will not agree on this matters.

[Cuber Krypton]

They've been wanting to control it for years, that is nothing new. If you think they stand a chance of succeeding, watch what is going to happen with Jihan Wu's MASF for he's announcing for August in response to BIP148. If the dominant miner can't control Bitcoin (and I expect his effort to fail spectacularly), what chance to a clueless bunch of bankers with no miners have?

Agreed on You sir Legendary, this not new for me also in fact, its been a years that there somebody announcing it were bitcoin will become
centralize. Which is not going to be happen and for sure many of the community of bitcoin will not agree on this matters.

Bitcoin would be easily killed off if they wanted it. But the idea of Bitcoin is forever here.

Banks could easily buy up Bitcoin's market cap and render it useless. This is not control. Only sabotage.

Governments could make it that only Bitcoin Chain mined by XYZ is legal tender and make it more usable than any fork. This is also not control.

But to fully control this idea, you would have to outlaw OPEN SOURCE software development all together. I wonder if they will go to this extreme.

As far as effective control of the system in the way they are used to, is next to impossible. Privacy should be high on everyone's list. This is the first measure to assert control.

[deisik]

You don't get it, absolutely

First, I'm not saying that all coins created equal is communism. This was only to show you how false your approach is. Further, you don't understand what the word utilitarian means in this context. In the given context it means serving for achieving particular end, so if something doesn't help in reaching it (or even gets in the way), it is either non-utilitarian or even anti-utilitarian (for this specific purpose). This is not about free market versus communism dichotomy at all. It is about whether something is utilitarian or more (less) utilitarian for a given purpose. Miners as such play only utilitarian function (whether you like it or not), that of confirming transactions (and generating new coins). The whole thing is certainly not about them earning profits, it is not the purpose of mining. Beyond that purpose they are useless. If you proceed with this understanding, you will likely see my point

Profit is the incentive to fulfill their purpose, or utility. You surely recognize this

I couldn't make out what you meant to say, apart from this part

Indeed, profits are the incentive for miners to do their jobs, up to a certain point. But there are a few things which I mentioned but you seem to have failed to notice. First, there is no reason to think that this is the only way to create a decentralized payment system (otherwise known as blockchain), so there is no reason to think either that those who are confirming transactions should (and would) do that for profits only (thus your whole point of communism versus free market becomes irrelevant). And, second, this idea (profit as an incentive to fulfill the purpose) ultimately gets severely in the way of fulfilling that very purpose since miners start to care for profits (in the form of fees) more than for making their job (i.e. confirming transactions)

[Cuber Krypton]

You don't get it, absolutely

First, I'm not saying that all coins created equal is communism. This was only to show you how false your approach is. Further, you don't understand what the word utilitarian means in this context. In the given context it means serving for achieving particular end, so if something doesn't help in reaching it (or even gets in the way), it is either non-utilitarian or even anti-utilitarian (for this specific purpose). This is not about free market versus communism dichotomy at all. It is about whether something is utilitarian or more (less) utilitarian for a given purpose. Miners as such play only utilitarian function (whether you like it or not), that of confirming transactions (and generating new coins). The whole thing is certainly not about them earning profits, it is not the purpose of mining. Beyond that purpose they are useless. If you proceed with this understanding, you will likely see my point

Profit is the incentive to fulfill their purpose, or utility. You surely recognize this

I couldn't make out what you meant to say, apart from this part

Indeed, profits are the incentive for miners to do their jobs, up to a certain point. But there are a few things which I mentioned but you seem to have failed to notice. First, there is no reason to think that this is the only way to create a decentralized payment system (otherwise known as blockchain), so there is no reason to think either that those who are confirming transactions should (and would) do that for profits only (thus your whole point of communism versus free market becomes irrelevant). And, second, this idea (profit as an incentive to fulfill the purpose) ultimately gets severely in the way of fulfilling that very purpose since miners start to care for profits (in the form of fees) more than for making their job (i.e. confirming transactions)

Considering the long term, miners are incentivized to promote usability. Their income will be dependent on fees, thus, confirming transactions. It is of no interest to the miner not to confirm transactions. I do not understand this argument whatsoever.