Bitcoin is no longer decentralized

[gollum]

Bitcoin was a nice experiment of a decentralized currency,
but now it is becoming more and more like the traditional banking system,
less decentralized and more in the control of a few entities.

We see already that the blockchain is to huge for most users so they won't bother with using the bitcoin-client.
Instead most people will use bitcoin wallets in the cloud, and the real bitcoin clients will be run mostly by corporations, not by consumers.
The same goes with mining, it is not profitable anymore for you to mine coins at home, it must be done with ASIC and in a large scale to be profitable over time.

So the bitcoin infrastructure will become like fiat:
-The currency is issued by the banks ( bitcoins mined by a few mining corporations)
-The SWIFT backbone is run by the banks (bitcoin clients and mining run by a few corporations)

The only advantage of bitcoin is that everyone has the RIGHT to mine the currency or run the backbone (bitcoin client), but most users wont care about those rights.

[gollum]

I hope the bitcoin-client can be developed in a light-version so you dont need to have ALL the blockchain, just the latest parts.

Centralized mining is more understandable, but thats also aginst the ideology of bitcoin.
Adam3us is warning about the centralization of mining in this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=180020

[hayek]

Well, I disagree almost entirely but what do I know.

The dystopia that you are painting just doesn't fit the canvas. I see ASICs in the hands of many people. I also see ASICs coming down in price drastically. I feel just the opposite.

I see it more akin to assembly lining/the Bessemer Converter. Just because the means of production is now highly specialized and done so at a very fast rate does not make it bad. It would have done no good to defend blacksmiths from the assembly line or the Bessemer Converter.

If you want to mine now, or be a part of mining, there are still plenty of opportunities. Become a share holder. Start a mining farm. Otherwise this is just FUD.

[gollum]

Well, I disagree almost entirely but what do I know.

The dystopia that you are painting just doesn't fit the canvas. I see ASICs in the hands of many people. I also see ASICs coming down in price drastically. I feel just the opposite.

I see it more akin to assembly lining/the Bessemer Converter. Just because the means of production is now highly specialized and done so at a very fast rate does not make it bad. It would have done no good to defend blacksmiths from the assembly line or the Bessemer Converter.

If you want to mine now, or be a part of mining, there are still plenty of opportunities. Become a share holder. Start a mining farm. Otherwise this is just FUD.

I hope that the scenario I am describing is wrong , and yours is correct.
The ideal situation would be that 80% of the mining was done by many independent individuals.

[crumbs]

Well, I disagree almost entirely but what do I know.

The dystopia that you are painting just doesn't fit the canvas. I see ASICs in the hands of many people. I also see ASICs coming down in price drastically. I feel just the opposite.

I see it more akin to assembly lining/the Bessemer Converter. Just because the means of production is now highly specialized and done so at a very fast rate does not make it bad. It would have done no good to defend blacksmiths from the assembly line or the Bessemer Converter.

If you want to mine now, or be a part of mining, there are still plenty of opportunities. Become a share holder. Start a mining farm. Otherwise this is just FUD.

The luddites were doomed to fail, but their fears were perfectly justified & came to pass.  Cottage industries disappeared, along with the jobs they provided.  Good luck making a living as a village blacksmith today  Good luck *finding* a weaver.

Sure, many jobs were created, but these jobs meant working *for the big guy*, not working for yourself.  Your "buy shares lol" argument is analogous to investing, not producing.  An investor is staking his fortune on the success of others, not his own abilities.  That's a bit different from being a producer.

[hayek]

I hope that the scenario I am describing is wrong , and yours is correct.
The ideal situation would be that 80% of the mining was done by many independent individuals.

What good would that do? What would it accomplish?

I fear that maybe there is just a misunderstanding of central banking on your part. Even if mining is narrowed down to large players we're coming up on a point where 1/4 the remaining supply exists. They can't just print more.

[empoweoqwj]

I've really no idea what you are complaining about.

1. Whoever said "mining should be done in the home" - nobody.
2. Of course normal people shouldn't ever download the blockchain, and be using wallets and other technologies. What is it about the blockchain that makes it necessary for us all to have it. We don't need it. Period. We need access to bitcoins, not the blockchain.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Bitcoin was never really decentralized in the first place -- from when Satoshi mined most of the blocks by himself, to Deepbit's >51% hashpower, etc.

[crumbs]

I've really no idea what you are complaining about.

1. Whoever said "mining should be done in the home" - nobody.
2. Of course normal people shouldn't ever download the blockchain, and be using wallets and other technologies. What is it about the blockchain that makes it necessary for us all to have it. We don't need it. Period. We need access to bitcoins, not the blockchain.

>>decentralized

[hayek]

The luddites were doomed to fail, but their fears were perfectly justified & came to pass.  Cottage industries disappeared, along with the jobs they provided.  Good luck making a living as a village blacksmith today  Good luck *finding* a weaver.

Sure, many jobs were created, but these jobs meant working *for the big guy*, not working for yourself.  Your "buy shares lol" argument is analogous to investing, not producing.  An investor is staking his fortune on the success of others, not his own abilities.  That's a bit different from being a producer.

This is very sad. Very very sad.

Of course investing is based on producing. It's about allocating resources where they'll do the most good. If I can give my $200 to someone who can turn it in to $1000 and I can only turn it in to $300 then more wealth/value was put in to the world than I could have done myself.

It's about pride. It is dangerously romantic and arrogant to flaunt the idea that you can only produce if you are making something with your hands alone. An investor is an enabler, making it possible for someone who can do the most good to do the most good.

The "big guy" is the big guy because they were able to move production and the standard of living to a point unattainable by individuals working by themselves.

Of course, the beauty of all of this is that it is voluntary. If you don't like it you can take your syndicalist mentality and make your own coin.

[crumbs]

The luddites were doomed to fail, but their fears were perfectly justified & came to pass.  Cottage industries disappeared, along with the jobs they provided.  Good luck making a living as a village blacksmith today  Good luck *finding* a weaver.

Sure, many jobs were created, but these jobs meant working *for the big guy*, not working for yourself.  Your "buy shares lol" argument is analogous to investing, not producing.  An investor is staking his fortune on the success of others, not his own abilities.  That's a bit different from being a producer.

This is very sad. Very very sad.

Of course investing is based on producing. It's about allocating resources where they'll do the most good. If I can give my $200 to someone who can turn it in to $1000 and I can only turn it in to $300 then more wealth/value was put in to the world than I could have done myself.

It's about pride. It is dangerously romantic and arrogant to flaunt the idea that you can only produce if you are making something with your hands alone. An investor is an enabler, making it possible for someone who can do the most good to do the most good.

The "big guy" is the big guy because they were able to move production and the standard of living to a point unattainable by individuals working by themselves.

Of course, the beauty of all of this is that it is voluntary. If you don't like it you can take your syndicalist mentality and make your own coin.

I'm not arguing the merits of the "big guys" -- an entirely different argument.
I'm simply pointing out that OP is correct in his acertion -- mining *is* becoming centralized, anyone doubting this only needs to check GHash.io -- 180TH/s and counting
I think that Bitfury is tremendously capable & deserves every Satoshi it mines.  This, of course, is irrelevant to this thread.

Edit: As far as investment = production, that's an econ. 101 topic -- i invest with the best of them by keeping my fiat in a bank

[becoin]

The dystopia that you are painting just doesn't fit the canvas. I see ASICs in the hands of many people.

It is like saying Windows is a decentralized OS because I see Windows in the computers of many people. It is just funny.

[Akka]

The same goes with mining, it is not profitable anymore for you to mine coins at home, it must be done with ASIC and in a large scale to be profitable over time.

Why has it to be done in large scale to be profitable?

It doesn't make any difference if you run a "small" 100GH/s at 100W machine or a "big" farm with 100 TH/s at 100 KW. (Numbers pulled out of my ass, no Idea what the current specs are)

Well there is one difference: While a small miner can run their equipment at a loss and just for the fun of it, the big miner will be forced to shut down when the cost of mining one BTC becomes higher than the price he can sell it for. You maybe can stand a few dollars of loss due to power cost each month, but when it's 1000nds each month there is no choice, you'll have to shut down.

[hayek]

The dystopia that you are painting just doesn't fit the canvas. I see ASICs in the hands of many people.

It is like saying Windows is a decentralized OS because I see Windows in the computers of many people. It is just funny.

Apples to Oranges is a hilarious fallacy.

The point of every single one of these threads is "Wahhh I cannot become rich mining bitcoin overnight" and it's just serial griping from people who are late to the game. Reality is that it is cheaper and easier for many people to mine now than ever before.

[crumbs]

The same goes with mining, it is not profitable anymore for you to mine coins at home, it must be done with ASIC and in a large scale to be profitable over time.

Why has it to be done in large scale to be profitable?
...

1. Mining with the chips you yourself manufacture, thus eliminating marketing & supply chain expenses.
2. Getting electricity at the best available rate -- anywhere.
3. Maintaining 1,000 miners cost less than maintaining (a single miner) * 1000.
4. etc., etc., etc.

[crumbs]

The dystopia that you are painting just doesn't fit the canvas. I see ASICs in the hands of many people.

It is like saying Windows is a decentralized OS because I see Windows in the computers of many people. It is just funny.

Apples to Oranges is a hilarious fallacy.

The point of every single one of these threads is "Wahhh I cannot become rich mining bitcoin overnight" and it's just serial griping from people who are late to the game. Reality is that it is cheaper and easier for many people to mine now than ever before.

People are stating facts.  If you think it's cheaper to "mine now than ever before," please explain what you mean.

[hayek]

People are stating facts.  If you think it's cheaper to "mine now than ever before," please explain what you mean.

Yes but what you are doing is throwing facts together and going "Look! I've got facts together! FACTS!!!" and not making a point.

How cheap is 1GH right now? Cheaper than ever before. If you don't like the return on that 1GH that's because of the how many people are mining.


http://blockchain.info/pools

How many of those are pooled groups made up of thousands of individuals? The idea that mining is now comprised of several megalithic companies is not only preposterous but insulting to your audience.

Now... with regard to this nonsense:

1. Mining with the chips you yourself manufacture, thus eliminating marketing & supply chain expenses.
This is called veritical integration and it is a good thing. It is responsible for the cost of steel going so low we were able to build gigantic cities and railroads and increase the standard of living of the entire world.

2. Getting electricity at the best available rate -- anywhere.
What's your point? Larger companies can negotiate rates?

3. Maintaining 1,000 miners cost less than maintaining (a single miner) * 1000.
1 Person maintaining 1,000 miners CAN cost less than a single miner maintained per person across thousands of people. It CAN be. But this is a superfluous unless you plan on making an actual point.

4. etc., etc., etc.
I think you're just running out of BS my friend

[becoin]

The dystopia that you are painting just doesn't fit the canvas. I see ASICs in the hands of many people.

It is like saying Windows is a decentralized OS because I see Windows in the computers of many people. It is just funny.

Apples to Oranges is a hilarious fallacy.

The point of every single one of these threads is ...

The point of THIS thread is obvious. It doesn't matter how many people are using ASICs. What really matters is how many people are producing them?

For the purpose of decentralization it doesn't matter that millions are using Windows OS because all they have a back door in their machine by design. And this manufacturer will do whatever the government told them to do. They won't fight, they'll collaborate because all they want is a steady revenue stream. That all happens when there is no genuine competition on a production level. That, my friend, is a centralization in its worst.

[crumbs]

People are stating facts.  If you think it's cheaper to "mine now than ever before," please explain what you mean.

Yes but what you are doing is throwing facts together and going "Look! I've got facts together! FACTS!!!" and not making a point.

How cheap is 1GH right now? Cheaper than ever before. If you don't like the return on that 1GH that's because of the how many people are mining.

How much coin does that mine you?  Less than ever before.

How many of those are pooled groups made up of thousands of individuals? The idea that mining is now comprised of several megalithic companies is not only preposterous but insulting to your audience.

GHash.io is as much a "group of individuals" as my bank is a group of individuals.  If knowing the facts is insulting to my audience, i'll grin and bear it.

Now... with regard to this nonsense:

1. Mining with the chips you yourself manufacture, thus eliminating marketing & supply chain expenses.
This is called veritical integration and it is a good thing. It is responsible for the cost of steel going so low we were able to build gigantic cities and railroads and increase the standard of living of the entire world.

Vertical integration *is* centralization.  If vertical integration is a "good thing," so is centralization.  Congrats

2. Getting electricity at the best available rate -- anywhere.
What's your point? Larger companies can negotiate rates?

My point is industrial power rates are lower than consumer power rates, and individuals are unlikely to pick up & move next to a nuclear power plant just so that they could continue mining.  What's YOUR point?

3. Maintaining 1,000 miners cost less than maintaining (a single miner) * 1000.
1 Person maintaining 1,000 miners CAN cost less than a single miner maintained per person across thousands of people. It CAN be. But this is a superfluous unless you plan on making an actual point.

It not only can be, it *is*.  Learn economies of scale, pl0x.  My point is plain -- large mining farms are more efficient and profitable than small ones.

4. etc., etc., etc.
I think you're just running out of BS my friend

If you lrn how to polite, i'll list you many more -- that's what etcetera stands for.

[gollum]

crumbs - you prefer decentralization, since it is the Unique feature of bitcoin.
hayek - you dont mind if bitcoin is becoming centralized, since it is the natural way for all industrial development, where an industry becomes more specialized, effiecient and concentrated in the hands of a few corporations

Both of you are right from your respective perspective.
For me, bitcoin's "Unique Selling Point" was: Anonimity and Decentralization.
But now bitcoin feels less anonymous than my VISA-card, and is becoming as centralzied as the banking system (SWIFT).
So why should I bother using bitcoin instead of VISA when I don't get the original features of bitcoin?