Hashers are not miners, and Bitcoin network doesn't need them.

[cdog]

Right now there are plenty of pools and plenty of competition. This only becomes an issue if we get to the point of only having 3 pools making up 99% of the total hashrate.

Maybe there should be a rule, no single pool can ever have more than 33% of the total hashrate? But its impossible to enforce. Bitcoin Foundation could help here possibly, but its unlikely.  

Yes, obviously p2pool is the answer but how do we get people to flock to it? People are now gladly giving up 5% of their profits to have zero variance. The human brain is highly illogical at times.

Miners are self interested so the solution can only be one that serves their self interest. Anything else is 100% guaranteed to fail.

But dont blame the miners for being "evil" or greedy for using pooled mining, self interest is natural and healthy. Bitcoin would not exist without this self interest.

Are you greedy for keeping 100% of your paycheck and not giving all profits above rent+food to charity? No, just a normal person. Donating a bit every year helps your conscience though.

[cdog]

You're trying to demoralize a perfectly legitimate behavior on part of the "hashers", but this only diverts the discussion from the real issue: the protocol itself.
The protocol was designed to encourage profit seekers, or "hashers", to.. hash.

Satoshi didn't foresee this centralization behavior.
But I can guarantee you, that if he did, he wouldn't seek a moralizing argument, but a technical solution.
The whole point of Bitcoin is to be moral-agnostic, and trust-free. It's a cryptographically secured public ledger, not a charity fund or a society equalizer.

Calling names is pointless. We need technical solutions, not moral preaching.

Wow, great post. Please, post more often.

[AdamWhite]

You're trying to demoralize a perfectly legitimate behavior on part of the "hashers", but this only diverts the discussion from the real issue: the protocol itself.
The protocol was designed to encourage profit seekers, or "hashers", to.. hash.

Satoshi didn't foresee this centralization behavior.
But I can guarantee you, that if he did, he wouldn't seek a moralizing argument, but a technical solution.
The whole point of Bitcoin is to be moral-agnostic, and trust-free. It's a cryptographically secured public ledger, not a charity fund or a society equalizer.

Calling names is pointless. We need technical solutions, not moral preaching.

This is a very thoughtful reply, I completely agree.

Believe it or not OP, miners, hashers, are in this to generate bitcoin. Do you believe anyone would buy a jupiter or example if they were told they might not generate a block, ever? People join one pool over another not because they are evil parasites, but because they're new and they don't yet understand everything there is to know about the protocol.

[Ekkio]

You're trying to demoralize a perfectly legitimate behavior on part of the "hashers", but this only diverts the discussion from the real issue: the protocol itself.
The protocol was designed to encourage profit seekers, or "hashers", to.. hash.

Satoshi didn't foresee this centralization behavior.
But I can guarantee you, that if he did, he wouldn't seek a moralizing argument, but a technical solution.
The whole point of Bitcoin is to be moral-agnostic, and trust-free. It's a cryptographically secured public ledger, not a charity fund or a society equalizer.

Calling names is pointless. We need technical solutions, not moral preaching.

What I am trying to do is different, good definitions have a much greater chance to lead to intelligent discussion and this is why it is important to recognize difference between Miners and Hashers. Opening up a good discussion is a first step in finding solution.

Believe it or not OP, miners, hashers, are in this to generate bitcoin. Do you believe anyone would buy a jupiter or example if they were told they might not generate a block, ever? People join one pool over another not because they are evil parasites, but because they're new and they don't yet understand everything there is to know about the protocol.

Helping new people to understand the difference between Miners and Hashers is important. Miners are different from Hashers because they honor the social contract with Bitcoin community, in exchange for the reward they provide security to Bitcoin network. I think that development of tools that would make it easier for Hashers to become Miners would be a good thing.

[Colin Miner]

no longer hashers have to run bitcoin software and govern Bitcoin network instead they just point their hashing power to pools and delegate their enforcement power to small group of people, and that makes that hashing power useless in terms of securing Bitcoin network.

Yes, I see your point. I agree. Miners are trying to get the best reward for their work, pools can help achieve this. But it was bitcoin that offered this reward and encourage miners to chase it.

There is a clear distinction between Miners and Hashers. Miners verify validity of transactions and blocks according to Bitcoin protocol but Hashers do no such thing they are happy to hash anything while looking for magic number. I would like people to understand it because that will help to get the message out.

Yes, I should have used 'hasher' in place of 'miner'. Hasher doesn't really add anything to bitcoin, but a Miner does add value to bitcoin.

[tvbcof]

You're trying to demoralize a perfectly legitimate behavior on part of the "hashers", but this only diverts the discussion from the real issue: the protocol itself.
The protocol was designed to encourage profit seekers, or "hashers", to.. hash.

Satoshi didn't foresee this centralization behavior.
But I can guarantee you, that if he did, he wouldn't seek a moralizing argument, but a technical solution.
The whole point of Bitcoin is to be moral-agnostic, and trust-free. It's a cryptographically secured public ledger, not a charity fund or a society equalizer.

Calling names is pointless. We need technical solutions, not moral preaching.

We've gone around and around on this topic for years.  Some of the real old-timers and significant contributes who have had an actual relationship with 'Satoshi' have produced information which makes it pretty clear to me that the guy not only anticipated pretty significant centralization but welcomed it.  The whole "Moore's law" thing is just marketing material for technically deficient clowns/victims.

This puts me personally in a bind because I take the opposite view of how A-OK centralization is.  As a defensive mechanism I take the approach of simply disagreeing with Satoshi and not really considering him/them some sort of a mythical deity-like being.  Whoever he/they are/were they obviously had some good ideas and the implementation of Bitcoin is very impressive as an experimental first-cut.  Bitcoin has been one of the more disruptive technologies in probably forever and it's just getting started, but it will probably be mostly remembered as being sort of a spark that ignited a lot more I'll bet.

[Colin Miner]

it will probably be mostly remembered as being sort of a spark that ignited a lot more I'll bet.

This could be a reality if the big players in fiat transactions get involved. (Think paypal issuing an eBay coin or Visa issuing a real Visa coin). Expect massive advertising budgets, FUD, misinformation and the smear campaign against bitcoin and its users.

The majority of the public are not yet 'on board', there will be a war, the big players are just biding their time to strike.

[tvbcof]

it will probably be mostly remembered as being sort of a spark that ignited a lot more I'll bet.

This could be a reality if the big players in fiat transactions get involved. (Think paypal issuing an eBay coin or Visa issuing a real Visa coin). Expect massive advertising budgets, FUD, misinformation and the smear campaign against bitcoin and its users.

The majority of the public are not yet 'on board', there will be a war, the big players are just biding their time to strike.

Makes a lot more sense to simply appropriate Bitcoin and it's existing credibility.  90%+ of the current users, and a higher percentage every day, consider Bitcoin credible because someone else does without much concept about why.

Anyway, if/when blacklists come to town, controlling the blacklist entity is effectively controlling Bitcoin.  For people who know how money works that is fairly obvious.  I'm sure that is why we see the Mellon family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mellon_family) taking an active interest in getting out in front of this one.

[Holliday]

You're trying to demoralize a perfectly legitimate behavior on part of the "hashers", but this only diverts the discussion from the real issue: the protocol itself.
The protocol was designed to encourage profit seekers, or "hashers", to.. hash.

Satoshi didn't foresee this centralization behavior.
But I can guarantee you, that if he did, he wouldn't seek a moralizing argument, but a technical solution.
The whole point of Bitcoin is to be moral-agnostic, and trust-free. It's a cryptographically secured public ledger, not a charity fund or a society equalizer.

Calling names is pointless. We need technical solutions, not moral preaching.

I can't speak for everyone here, but I don't see where morals are involved at all. The entire issue revolves around profit. Short term profit versus long term sustainable profit.

I have no problem with hashers voluntarily selling their hashing power to centralized pools, but if that behavior results in those pools having the ability to attack Bitcoin, thus possibly destroying confidence in Bitcoin itself, those hashers are no longer going to be able to profit from selling hashing power.

Many people who hold large amounts of Bitcoin do so because of Bitcoin's decentralized nature. It would be wise to keep that in mind if your business is selling hash rate.

Satoshi did forsee a hashing power "arms race".

[johnyj]

It is simply because p2pool involve another step of setting up a full node, which is not included in all the delivered ASIC miners. Being a full node need to download the whole blockchain and be online all the time, many people do not have that extra machine

If a miner receive his ASIC miners with a full node and p2pool configuration built in, then there will be more people running p2pool

[QuestionAuthority]

You're trying to demoralize a perfectly legitimate behavior on part of the "hashers", but this only diverts the discussion from the real issue: the protocol itself.
The protocol was designed to encourage profit seekers, or "hashers", to.. hash.

Satoshi didn't foresee this centralization behavior.
But I can guarantee you, that if he did, he wouldn't seek a moralizing argument, but a technical solution.
The whole point of Bitcoin is to be moral-agnostic, and trust-free. It's a cryptographically secured public ledger, not a charity fund or a society equalizer.

Calling names is pointless. We need technical solutions, not moral preaching.

We've gone around and around on this topic for years.  Some of the real old-timers and significant contributes who have had an actual relationship with 'Satoshi' have produced information which makes it pretty clear to me that the guy not only anticipated pretty significant centralization but welcomed it.  The whole "Moore's law" thing is just marketing material for technically deficient clowns/victims.

This puts me personally in a bind because I take the opposite view of how A-OK centralization is.  As a defensive mechanism I take the approach of simply disagreeing with Satoshi and not really considering him/them some sort of a mythical deity-like being.  Whoever he/they are/were they obviously had some good ideas and the implementation of Bitcoin is very impressive as an experimental first-cut.  Bitcoin has been one of the more disruptive technologies in probably forever and it's just getting started, but it will probably be mostly remembered as being sort of a spark that ignited a lot more I'll bet.

You seem to be predicting the eventual downfall of Bitcoin. Any guess about which alt will be the successor and how long it will take?

[Holliday]

Any guess about which alt will be the successor and how long it will take?

Coin-which-does-not-exist-yet.

[smooth]

It is simply because p2pool involve another step of setting up a full node, which is not included in all the delivered ASIC miners. Being a full node need to download the whole blockchain and be online all the time, many people do not have that extra machine

If a miner receive his ASIC miners with a full node and p2pool configuration built in, then there will be more people running p2pool

Being online all the time is not the issue, as miners already have to do that. But p2pool installation, configuration, etc. is definitely an issue. If you want to help with decentralization, work on making that easier (along with the other issues I mentioned -- pretty charts, etc.)

[tvbcof]

...  Bitcoin has been one of the more disruptive technologies in probably forever and it's just getting started, but it will probably be mostly remembered as being sort of a spark that ignited a lot more I'll bet.

You seem to be predicting the eventual downfall of Bitcoin. Any guess about which alt will be the successor and how long it will take?

'downfall' is a misnomer.  I imagine that Bitcoin will be highly 'successful' in terms of utilization rates, valuations, and user satisfaction even if it does end up being operated by a handful of multi-nationals and some blacklist authority is fully operational.  Most people don't care about that shit.  But yes, I anticipate that it is more likely than not that this is the eventual path that Bitcoin will follow.

Hopefully what will happen is that simultaneously a variety of 'free' (to some degree or another) distributed crypto-currencies will develop and be used by entities for the benefit of people who willingly choose to support said entities.

I do not think it would be technically challenging to have exchange services find the natural valuations of any number of crypto-currencies.  Nor do I think it should be very expensive for the end-user to use these exchanges.  It's simply not a tough problem because the 'correct' state is one which is arrived at by nature.  There is no 'wrong answer' to valuations provided that the exchanges can function free of interference.  A natural consequence would be that the alternate crypto-currencies which are well managed and representative of a popular entity will hold higher values.  The big sticking point here is that it must be recognized as a natural and global human right to freely participate in such interactions and it is far from a sure thing that our political leaderships will be very keen on this concept.

There will likely evolve a viable 'reserve' or 'balancing' crypto-currency.  This is basically the function that XRP wishes to play in that Ripple monetary system I think.  I had hopes that Bitcoin would fill that role, and it may not be to late because the transaction rate (block size) has not been increased yet and because there is still the potential to foul up blacklisting I think.  But I'm expecting it more likely than not at this point that Bitcoin will blow it's chances here.  As I've said before, the old fable about 'The Fisherman's Wife'* fits real well.

 * The Western one...not the pornographic Japanese one involving penetration by slimy multi-armed creatures...though come to think of it that could have some applicability to the situation with Bitcoin and the Bitcoin Foundation and such as well...Hmmm...

[QuestionAuthority]

...  Bitcoin has been one of the more disruptive technologies in probably forever and it's just getting started, but it will probably be mostly remembered as being sort of a spark that ignited a lot more I'll bet.

You seem to be predicting the eventual downfall of Bitcoin. Any guess about which alt will be the successor and how long it will take?

'downfall' is a misnomer.  I imagine that Bitcoin will be highly 'successful' in terms of utilization rates, valuations, and user satisfaction even if it does end up being operated by a handful of multi-nationals and some blacklist authority is fully operational.  Most people don't care about that shit.  But yes, I anticipate that it is more likely than not that this is the eventual path that Bitcoin will follow.

Hopefully what will happen is that simultaneously a variety of 'free' (to some degree or another) distributed crypto-currencies will develop and be used by entities for the benefit of people who willingly choose to support said entities.

I do not think it would be technically challenging to have exchange services find the natural valuations of any number of crypto-currencies.  Nor do I think it should be very expensive for the end-user to use these exchanges.  It's simply not a tough problem because the 'correct' state is one which is arrived at by nature.  There is no 'wrong answer' to valuations provided that the exchanges can function free of interference.  A natural consequence would be that the alternate crypto-currencies which are well managed and representative of a popular entity will hold higher values.  The big sticking point here is that it must be recognized as a natural and global human right to freely participate in such interactions and it is far from a sure thing that our political leaderships will be very keen on this concept.

There will likely evolve a viable 'reserve' or 'balancing' crypto-currency.  This is basically the function that XRP wishes to play in that Ripple monetary system I think.  I had hopes that Bitcoin would fill that role, and it may not be to late because the transaction rate (block size) has not been increased yet and because there is still the potential to foul up blacklisting I think.  But I'm expecting it more likely than not at this point that Bitcoin will blow it's chances here.  As I've said before, the old fable about 'The Fisherman's Wife'* fits real well.

 * The Western one...not the pornographic Japanese one involving penetration by slimy multi-armed creatures...though come to think of it that could have some applicability to the situation with Bitcoin and the Bitcoin Foundation and such as well...Hmmm...

I hate to admit it (to myself) I agree with most of you're argument. I disdain blacklisting and consider the concept the end of fungibility. Blacklisting will mean the end of Bitcoin for me. Bitcoin can, however, still be the next cool financial instrument to be used by the great unwashed masses. They are already quite comfortable with being controlled and obviously don't mind the constant surveillance of their finances because they allow the government to do it. TBF member businesses are posing as the company behind Bitcoin, negotiating with governments as the owner of Bitcoin and buying the devs. Get into bed with governments and the useful and unique qualities of Bitcoin will be destroyed.

The ideal behind the Bitcoin that I learned to appreciate can live on in another coin controlled by another collection of like minded people. Unfortunately, a multitude a problems must be overcome for that new coin to be the tool of financial freedom that I wanted Bitcoin to be. One problem is almost impossible to overcome and I see no solution available. Humans are corruptible and devs are humans. They can be employed by businesses that spring up around the new coin and develop the new coin into something the people don't want it to be. So we all abandon that coin and move to another one in an endless loop. I don't see an IOU or reserve system as a necessary component for a cryptocurrency and they already include a decentralized cryptographically secure accounting system. Open source is proving to work no better than closed source corporately controlled software works when the stakes are high.

[tvbcof]

I hate to admit it (to myself) I agree with most of you're argument. ...

Ya, I know what you mean.  I find myself agreeing with the likes of you, Justusravinair, etc more than I wish as well.  What can a guy do?

[QuestionAuthority]

I hate to admit it (to myself) I agree with most of you're argument. ...

Ya, I know what you mean.  I find myself agreeing with the likes of you, Justusravinair, etc more than I wish as well.  What can a guy do?

LOL Sorry, that came off wrong. I agree with much of what you say. I meant I can't believe that Bitcoin has become so fucked so fast and had so much promise in the beginning.

[tvbcof]

I hate to admit it (to myself) I agree with most of you're argument. ...

Ya, I know what you mean.  I find myself agreeing with the likes of you, Justusravinair, etc more than I wish as well.  What can a guy do?

LOL Sorry, that came off wrong. I agree with much of what you say. I meant I can't believe that Bitcoin has become so fucked so fast and had so much promise in the beginning.

Lemme cheer you up then.

I am amazed that we've seen the success we have without excessive pressure to expand beyond the point of no return.  This is, I believe, because things are becoming 'off-chain' more or less organically.  Of course I would love to see everything be on-chain from a 'purity' perspective except that it would put unhealthy pressure on the infrastructure, and might have undesired privacy issues.  Going 'off-chain' or 'multi-tiered' actually takes away relatively little of Bitcoin's strength because Bitcoin still serves as the foundation.

Further some of the best devs are on 'our side' and there is fighting chance that methods will be implemented which can make blacklist tracking impractical.  At least I believe that the case though I admit to not really studying things that hard lately.

Upshot:  All hope is not lost for Bitcoin proper, and even if it goes bye-bye (as something that certain of us can respect) it has opened the door for follow-ons to improve upon.  These are going to be very interesting times for we who are interested in political/monetary issues.

[QuestionAuthority]

I hate to admit it (to myself) I agree with most of you're argument. ...

Ya, I know what you mean.  I find myself agreeing with the likes of you, Justusravinair, etc more than I wish as well.  What can a guy do?

LOL Sorry, that came off wrong. I agree with much of what you say. I meant I can't believe that Bitcoin has become so fucked so fast and had so much promise in the beginning.

Lemme cheer you up then.

I am amazed that we've seen the success we have without excessive pressure to expand beyond the point of no return.  This is, I believe, because things are becoming 'off-chain' more or less organically.  Of course I would love to see everything be on-chain from a 'purity' perspective except that it would put unhealthy pressure on the infrastructure, and might have undesired privacy issues.  Going 'off-chain' or 'multi-tiered' actually takes away relatively little of Bitcoin's strength because Bitcoin still serves as the foundation.

Further some of the best devs are on 'our side' and there is fighting chance that methods will be implemented which can make blacklist tracking impractical.  At least I believe that the case though I admit to not really studying things that hard lately.

Upshot:  All hope is not lost for Bitcoin proper, and even if it goes bye-bye (as something that certain of us can respect) it has opened the door for follow-ons to improve upon.  These are going to be very interesting times for we who are interested in political/monetary issues.

I hope you're right and changes can be implemented successfully but I do worry that the users will not support it all. It's not that the systems can't be developed but the great unwashed will not support it for lack of understanding. I've been watching the development of CoinJoin and have always known that Gmaxwell is fighting the good fight but (because Bitcoin is a political instrument now) I don't believe he will ever get it included in the QT wallet. It will be interesting to watch it all unfold. In the end I suppose it really doesn't matter if Bitcoin can't be saved because entrepreneurs and exchange deceit have created a windfall for me that can simply be exchanged to a competing coin.   

[FandangledGizmo]

Bump..




Why is 'centralization of mining' not the no.1 topic that the community is trying to address everyday?