Looks more and more like a 2011 repeat

[Frizz23]

No it's not a step backwards. Whether you invest in CPU, GPU or ASIC for mining doesn't really make a difference.

There are approx. 2 billion PCs -> decentralized.
There are some thousand ASICs -> centralized.

And more hashing power is actually better for the network as a whole.

Why?

[Miz4r]

No it's not a step backwards. Whether you invest in CPU, GPU or ASIC for mining doesn't really make a difference.

There are approx. 2 billion PCs -> decentralized.
There are some thousand ASICs -> centralized.

And how many PCs are/were actually used for mining? A couple thousand perhaps? Maybe a little over ten thousand? Also everyone who used to mine with their PC is free to upgrade their mining hardware and purchase an ASIC or do a group buy and get some shares. I've bought some as well, and you should too if you care so much about decentralization.

[Frizz23]

You seem to be pretty resilient to logic, so I make it simple for you - and ask you again:

And more hashing power is actually better for the network as a whole.

Why?

[Spaceman_Spiff]

You seem to be pretty resilient to logic, so I make it simple for you - and ask you again:

And more hashing power is actually better for the network as a whole.

Why?

Because it increases the cost for a potential 51% attacker.

[Miz4r]

You seem to be pretty resilient to logic, so I make it simple for you - and ask you again:

And more hashing power is actually better for the network as a whole.

Why?

You can leave out that condescending tone of yours if you want to discuss things in a civilized manner, it only makes you look bad. To answer your question: more combined hashing power strengthens the network and makes it less vulnerable to attacks.

[Its About Sharing]

You seem to be pretty resilient to logic, so I make it simple for you - and ask you again:

And more hashing power is actually better for the network as a whole.

Why?

You can leave out that condescending tone of yours if you want to discuss things in a civilized manner, it only makes you look bad. To answer your question: more combined hashing power strengthens the network and makes it less vulnerable to attacks.

+1 and wouldn't it also lessen the effect of DDOS attacks? (If they can actually attack that portion of the Network)...

[chiropteran]

There are approx. 2 billion PCs -> decentralized.
There are some thousand ASICs -> centralized.

Not really true.  While there may be some 2 billion PCs, only a tiny fraction of that number ever mined bitcoin. 

If you are going to count non-mining computers, I will count non-mining ASIC devices, and suddenly there are a lot more than "thousands" of ASIC.

[Rampion]

Both Google trends and forum activity are lagging indicators. Quite nice to picture the current situation, and to compare "today" with "yesterday", but complete useless anything else.

[Frizz23]

You can leave out that condescending tone of yours if you want to discuss things in a civilized manner, it only makes you look bad.

When I look at your explanation, that "condescending tone" is obviously needed in your case.

To answer your question: more combined hashing power strengthens the network and makes it less vulnerable to attacks.

Let me ask you another question: Which Bitcoin network is "less vulnerable to attacks": a) or b) ?

a) 5 Avalon ASIC Miners, combined hashing power: a whooping 325 Gh/s
b) 5,000,000 PCs with CPU miners, combined hashing power: only 50 Gh/s


It seems you failed to understand basic Bitcoin concepts. Like "difficulty" ...

[Odalv]

You can leave out that condescending tone of yours if you want to discuss things in a civilized manner, it only makes you look bad.

When I look at your explanation, that "condescending tone" is obviously needed in your case.

To answer your question: more combined hashing power strengthens the network and makes it less vulnerable to attacks.

Let me ask you another question: Which Bitcoin network is "less vulnerable to attacks": a) or b) ?

a) 5 Avalon ASIC Miners, combined hashing power: a whooping 325 Gh/s
b) 5,000,000 PCs with CPU miners, combined hashing power: only 50 Gh/s


It seems you failed to understand basic Bitcoin concepts. Like "difficulty" ...

- 5 ASIC miners can totally destroy 5,000,000 CPU miners (is CPU mined chain safe ? .. answer: it is not).
- Is p2p infrastructure with 10,000-100,000 ASICS safer then 5,000,000 CPU ? (answer: yes)

[Frizz23]

- 5 ASIC miners can totally destroy 5,000,000 CPU miners (is CPU mined chain safe ? .. answer: it is not).
- Is p2p infrastructure with 10,000-100,000 ASICS safer then 5,000,000 CPU ? (answer: yes)

Please, gentlemen, a little bit more outside-the-box thinking!

Who says Bitcoins hashing algorithm (SHA-256) is god given - and can never be changed?

Why buy additional hardware (ASICS) to get back to the original decentralization when there's a much simpler way: Change the hashing algorithm (to e.g. scrypt).

Bitcoins idea was to democratize currency. At the moment we see quite the opposite.

[Spaceman_Spiff]

- 5 ASIC miners can totally destroy 5,000,000 CPU miners (is CPU mined chain safe ? .. answer: it is not).
- Is p2p infrastructure with 10,000-100,000 ASICS safer then 5,000,000 CPU ? (answer: yes)

Please, gentlemen, a little bit more outside-the-box thinking!

Who says Bitcoins hashing algorithm (SHA-256) is god given - and can never be changed?

Why buy additional hardware (ASICS) to get back to the original decentralization when there's a much simpler way: Change the hashing algorithm (to e.g. scrypt).

Bitcoins idea was to democratize currency. At the moment we see quite the opposite.

I agree that a hashing algorithm that has a normal pc as its ASIC (meaning there is no hardware more suitable to mine than a normal pc) would be ideal.  
But under the current circumstances, when there is a vastly more efficient machine for the current algorithm, its good that these are being used.

[Frizz23]

But under the current circumstances, when there is a vastly more efficient machine for the current algorithm, its good that these are being used.

Define: "vastly more efficient".

A Bitcoin mined at difficulty 10,000,000 is not better than a Bitcoin mined at difficulty 1.

Bitcoins idea was to break the monopoly of the banks. To democratize currency. To become the money of the people. Now it seems it becomes the money of the ASIC companies.

Satoshi would be turning in his grave ...

[Odalv]

- 5 ASIC miners can totally destroy 5,000,000 CPU miners (is CPU mined chain safe ? .. answer: it is not).
- Is p2p infrastructure with 10,000-100,000 ASICS safer then 5,000,000 CPU ? (answer: yes)

Please, gentlemen, a little bit more outside-the-box thinking!

Who says Bitcoins hashing algorithm (SHA-256) is god given - and can never be changed?

Why buy additional hardware (ASICS) to get back to the original decentralization when there's a much simpler way: Change the hashing algorithm (to e.g. scrypt).

Bitcoins idea was to democratize currency. At the moment we see quite the opposite.

You have to evolve or die. (no matter if it is SHA-256 or ....) There will be always smarter guys who will come with inventions and will take profit.(only 1 winner, 99 have to lose ... do not cry "WE WILL MINE WITH CPU" it is your choice)

[Miz4r]

- 5 ASIC miners can totally destroy 5,000,000 CPU miners (is CPU mined chain safe ? .. answer: it is not).
- Is p2p infrastructure with 10,000-100,000 ASICS safer then 5,000,000 CPU ? (answer: yes)

Please, gentlemen, a little bit more outside-the-box thinking!

Who says Bitcoins hashing algorithm (SHA-256) is god given - and can never be changed?

Why buy additional hardware (ASICS) to get back to the original decentralization when there's a much simpler way: Change the hashing algorithm (to e.g. scrypt).

Bitcoins idea was to democratize currency. At the moment we see quite the opposite.

There's one more problem with using CPU/GPU only for mining: Botnets. With ASICs around they are not much of a threat anymore. I think changing the hashing algorithm to scrypt brings way more trouble than it's worth. And I really don't see how ASIC hardware undermines the democratic nature of Bitcoin as opposed to CPU or GPU mining, I just don't see any fundamental difference.

[Frizz23]

There's one more problem with using CPU/GPU only for mining: Botnets. ...

According to your previous definition Botnets are good ("... more combined hashing power strengthens the network and makes it less vulnerable to attacks ...")

[Frozenlock]

Botnets are good for the Bitcoin network.

[Miz4r]

There's one more problem with using CPU/GPU only for mining: Botnets. ...

According to your previous definition Botnets are good ("... more combined hashing power strengthens the network and makes it less vulnerable to attacks ...")

Botnets can be one example of such an 'attack', more combined hashing power is what made these Botnets lose their power.

[Spaceman_Spiff]

But under the current circumstances, when there is a vastly more efficient machine for the current algorithm, its good that these are being used.

Define: "vastly more efficient".

at generating hashes with the current algorithm....
Try mining with your CPU versus the ASICs in the network.

[manfred]

Meanwhile little has changed on this front