Who needs Satoshi Nakamoto principles?

[Ucy]

If mining is truely centralized the way you described it, the best option would be to decentralize or ban mining completely, otherwise the central forces will move to other things to centralize.

I'd prefer a situation where mining is suspended for the time being and maybe replaced with better alternatives. One of my favorite alternatives is rewarding the new miners with non-financial incentives like points/merits, ranking up in decentralized communities, more privileges etc. The rewards like points should only be used within the bitcoin communities.

[flamehowk]

Pools are centralized, but one can switch pools easily.

No one has a "right" to participate.  If you have something of value to offer, then it is a permission-less entry, if you have nothing of value to offer, no one should be forced to let you participate at their cost.  If you want to mine, earn money and buy miners.

"Well fed is not a friend to one who is hungry."
Russian folk proverb.

If mining is truely centralized the way you described it, the best option would be to decentralize or ban mining completely, otherwise the central forces will move to other things to centralize.

I'd prefer a situation where mining is suspended for the time being and maybe replaced with better alternatives. One of my favorite alternatives is rewarding the new miners with non-financial incentives like points/merits, ranking up in decentralized communities, more privileges etc. The rewards like points should only be used within the bitcoin communities.

I understood your idea. Your idea would be good if it would solve another problem: how to carry out the issue of coins? That is, if we do not issue coins as a reward for block mining, then how to issue them in the economic circulation environment? Who and by what rules will these coins receive? Have you thought about this?
At the moment, Bitcoin is a comprehensive solution that takes into account both technical implementation and economic tasks. In the case of “intangible rewards,” economic challenges are lost. Therefore, your solution is not comprehensive.

[IadixDev]

Pools are centralized, but one can switch pools easily.

No one has a "right" to participate.  If you have something of value to offer, then it is a permission-less entry, if you have nothing of value to offer, no one should be forced to let you participate at their cost.  If you want to mine, earn money and buy miners.

"Well fed is not a friend to one who is hungry."
Russian folk proverb.

If mining is truely centralized the way you described it, the best option would be to decentralize or ban mining completely, otherwise the central forces will move to other things to centralize.

I'd prefer a situation where mining is suspended for the time being and maybe replaced with better alternatives. One of my favorite alternatives is rewarding the new miners with non-financial incentives like points/merits, ranking up in decentralized communities, more privileges etc. The rewards like points should only be used within the bitcoin communities.

I understood your idea. Your idea would be good if it would solve another problem: how to carry out the issue of coins? That is, if we do not issue coins as a reward for block mining, then how to issue them in the economic circulation environment? Who and by what rules will these coins receive? Have you thought about this?
At the moment, Bitcoin is a comprehensive solution that takes into account both technical implementation and economic tasks. In the case of “intangible rewards,” economic challenges are lost. Therefore, your solution is not comprehensive.

Im also studying different system for this, originally i come from distributed system, and blockchain is a very Nice way to solve the byzantine problem while keeping the system decentralized and without relying on trusted party.

For me the area where blockchain are supposed to be king is for digital economy, everything that can hold value and being digitalized can be put into a blockchain environment.

With this idea there can be many way to earn outside of mining. And coin price would be adjusted to the price that services provider require for their service.

Someone sent me a pdf also where it shows how this economy could work with token emission based on value of services/goods available throught the blockchain. Its the only economic model that really make sense to me. And it fit better into a classic share scheme, as share value grow with the network.

For energy grid or such the model can become relatively simple without requiring mining to emit token.

But it needs an economy outside of only trading coin exchange market.

The mining is then only to force chain progress and select branches.

[DreamStage]

Taking the biggest example on Satoshi will be the same as you innovate and try something different from his principles.

His actions, implementations, changes on this cryptocurrency world made everyone think about it in many different perspectives.
You have real life modifications / situations adopting the network changes such as security, cryptocurrencies usage and many more.

Those are the biggest principles he left us and we shouldn't forget.

[CarnagexD]

"Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote."
Satoshi nakamoto

First of all. Satoshi is smart enough to have come up with bitcoin. But let's not forget that Satoshi is, well, human. Just like us! Stop looking at him/her/them as someone who is all-knowing and someone that doesn't make mistakes.

This people made me laugh, what do they think of Satoshi? a god? who is omniscient? Nakamoto is very clever for doing such a digital currency, we are having it right now but it has flaws coz there is nothing in this world created perfectly or to be perfect. There will and there will be imperfect things that can do the work and that made us human.

Also, again with the "mining is centralized" argument. Can you expound more on that so we would know how you came up with that conclusion? Sure it became more centralized due to it being harder to mine on personal computers due to ASICs, but calling it "completely centralized" is just pure bullcrap. Have you been listening to Peter Schiff or Nouriel Roubini?

I guess what he meant for centralized is some kind of group mining. He might listened or reading Peter Schiff shitty articles lol.

[kro55]

We can't say there is a single farm that is controlling all the mining. In fact, there are hundreds of farms that are doing bitcoin mining. So i completely rule out the fact that mining is centralized. Mining is still open to everyone who is willing to invest his time and money into it.

[DooMAD]

"Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote."
Satoshi nakamoto

First of all. Satoshi is smart enough to have come up with bitcoin. But let's not forget that Satoshi is, well, human. Just like us! Stop looking at him/her/them as someone who is all-knowing and someone that doesn't make mistakes.

This people made me laugh, what do they think of Satoshi? a god? who is omniscient? Nakamoto is very clever for doing such a digital currency, we are having it right now but it has flaws coz there is nothing in this world created perfectly or to be perfect. There will and there will be imperfect things that can do the work and that made us human.

I'm not entirely convinced satoshi did get it wrong.  I think people are just taking those words too literally.  Note the use of the word "essentially".  To me, that implies satoshi was merely outlining a general concept, not issuing some sort of decree that it had to mean each user could only use a single CPU.  To the best of my knowledge, there has never been anything in the code that attempts to restrict usage in that way.

True, it's likely satoshi didn't envision Pools, GPU mining or ASICs happening quite as rapidly as they did.  Mining did become an arms race rather suddenly.  But I'm sure those words were never intended to be some sort of mantra to explicitly follow.

[IadixDev]

"Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote."
Satoshi nakamoto

First of all. Satoshi is smart enough to have come up with bitcoin. But let's not forget that Satoshi is, well, human. Just like us! Stop looking at him/her/them as someone who is all-knowing and someone that doesn't make mistakes.

This people made me laugh, what do they think of Satoshi? a god? who is omniscient? Nakamoto is very clever for doing such a digital currency, we are having it right now but it has flaws coz there is nothing in this world created perfectly or to be perfect. There will and there will be imperfect things that can do the work and that made us human.

I'm not entirely convinced satoshi did get it wrong.  I think people are just taking those words too literally.  Note the use of the word "essentially".  To me, that implies satoshi was merely outlining a general concept, not issuing some sort of decree that it had to mean each user could only use a single CPU.  To the best of my knowledge, there has never been anything in the code that attempts to restrict usage in that way.

True, it's likely satoshi didn't envision Pools, GPU mining or ASICs happening quite as rapidly as they did.  Mining did become an arms race rather suddenly.  But I'm sure those words were never intended to be some sort of mantra to explicitly follow.

At the beginning its still this way it was understood by lot of users, that mining is equal to voting, and its what made bitcoin attractive to large public, not that it become a sort of mining oligarchy who extract all the profits.

What satoshi wanted and in which measure he anticipated how it turned is never very clear , but few years ago when it started to soar its mostly like this it was presented even if maybe satoshi already anticipated that mining would become a specialised industry.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13494495#msg13494495 thread resurection

[zviadits]

"Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote."
Satoshi nakamoto




As we all know, mining is now completely centralized. Big money buys expensive equipment in the form of ASIC / GPU / FPGA devices and deprives everyone else of the right to participate in the issue of cryptocurrencies.

Questions:

Does the modern cryptocurrency community need this principle of Satoshi Nakamoto?

Maybe it's time to abandon it and admit that ONLY money should always release new money?

Bitcoin mining will use itself up after a while because Bitcoin has a mining limit. Bitcoin is the top coin because of self-confidence, but not because of all of Satoshi's principles, his system isn't perfect. If you want something better use altcoins

[joinfree]

I think the entire crypto industry agrees to a larger extent that Proof of Work is definitely not the best of blockchain consensus mechanisms due to the possibility of its being easily centralized. For this reason even Ethereum one of the world's popular blockchain has switched proof of stake mechanism as this makes the blockchain network very decentralized and void of any centralization. We need to improve upon what Satoshi built folks.

[squatter]

Am I talking about taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor? No, I'm just saying that the poor must have a real opportunity to mine the cryptocurrency.

That's a nice idea, but it clashes with basic economics and the incentives underlying Bitcoin. The fundamental premise of proof-of-work mining is that miners engage in a costly and time-consuming process which can be easily verified. The whole point is that it's expensive for miners to produce POW but nearly free for users to verify.

Take that model to its natural conclusion. Increased competition leads to lower margins and higher costs, as difficulty rises. This forces smaller, "poorer" miners who cannot scale up their operations out of the market.

Let thousands of computers buy and mine a lot of coins. But let the poor have the opportunity to mine at least what a single computer or smartphone that a poor person, or a poor family, can buy.

It's not up to us. It's a market mechanism. Miners are driving the hash rate up because buyers are bidding up the price of bitcoins. If demand for bitcoins keeps rising, so too will mining expenditures.

You wanted to say that it contradicts the capitalist economy, in which all interests are concentrated on the needs of the rich? Yes!
You wanted to say that it violates the incentives of Bitcoin? No!
You do not understand the reasons why Bitcoin was created. This is the philosophy of crypto-anarchists, not bankers and merchants.

The whitepaper explains why Bitcoin was created:

A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending. We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network.

Bitcoin was created to cut third parties (like banks) out of financial transactions. Miners are just a means to that end. Satoshi might have hoped for an ecosystem where mining was less concentrated, but Bitcoin's design doesn't lend itself to that.

[Thekool1s]

Satoshi might have hoped for an ecosystem where mining was less concentrated

At least we are "identifying" that mining has become "concentrated", The top mining pools will BTW disagree with your statement The 1st step towards fixing something is identifying something is wrong... The worse thing which could happen is we let these things slip by till its too late to fix. Although I believe with "code" its never too late.

BTW I don't see anything wrong with OP's idea of everyone being able to mine. Mining if his algo works and that is a big if at this point, becomes a mere game of luck compared to what is now a current display of One's fortune, unfortunately. It has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth, although bitcoin's original motive wasn't redistribution of wealth, it was to take power away from the top 1% or "Centralization" in a nutshell... Moving towards an algo which is more based on "Luck" than what we have now could help with Redistribution of wealth aswell.
 
Giving it a second thought I wonder how the price would react if bitcoin mining becomes a game of mere luck compared to what it is now. Right now one could argue bitcoin's price is directly linked with how much energy it is required to mine them, what happens when it becomes a game of luck rather than a competition of who has the more hashing power...

[DooMAD]

BTW I don't see anything wrong with OP's idea of everyone being able to mine. Mining if his algo works and that is a big if at this point, becomes a mere game of luck compared to what is now a current display of One's fortune, unfortunately. It has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth, although bitcoin's original motive wasn't redistribution of wealth, it was to take power away from the top 1% or "Centralization" in a nutshell... Moving towards an algo which is more based on "Luck" than what we have now could help with Redistribution of wealth aswell.

The biggest "if".  Considering things may not have turned out quite as envisioned with how Bitcoin has evolved over time, there can be no guarantees that any any new algo would hold to its intended purpose either.  Incentive has a curious way of shifting the balance and discovering new paradigms.  It could unfold entirely in contrast to how any of us might imagine it playing out, assuming it was ever changed.  That said, there are those who (arguably quite wisely), see a change of algorithm as a nuclear option.  Something we only do as a last resort if all else has failed.  But there's certainly no reason why alternative algos can't be developed and thoroughly tested as a precaution.

[squatter]

Satoshi might have hoped for an ecosystem where mining was less concentrated

At least we are "identifying" that mining has become "concentrated", The top mining pools will BTW disagree with your statement The 1st step towards fixing something is identifying something is wrong... The worse thing which could happen is we let these things slip by till its too late to fix.

Whether it's even a problem at all is an eternal question. In 2014, GHash.IO exceeded 51% of the hash rate. There was no 51% attack, but the community took it as a wake-up call and GHash.IO's share of the hash rate perpetually fell thereafter.

For years, trolls have been fearmongering about the likelihood of collusion among the top pools to attack Bitcoin. Yet, this threat has never materialized.

Miners can quickly leave malicious pools, and mining pool administrators have strong financial incentives not to destroy their business with such an attack. These economic realities have been enough to secure the system thus far.

Remember also, 51% attacks don't give miners that much power. At worst, they can censor transactions and perform difficult-to-coordinate double spend attacks -- at great cost.

[Thekool1s]

The biggest "if".

Indeed. As for the rest, I agree with you. We can never be certain about how things will roll out but having "Backups" doesn't hurt anyone which is why things like "Quantum resistant" algos are being developed.


@squatter it doesn't have to be 51% attacks, Just look at what happened with the bitcoin tx fees when we were "mooning". Miners can definitely extort whatever fees they want... They can basically hold the network hostage. It has nothing to do with being a troll... Dismissing them won't resolve what's currently possible. Also, Past behaviour isn't a really good point to argue from iyam. "Just because we saw 1000 black swans doesn't mean white swans don't exist."

[IadixDev]

Satoshi might have hoped for an ecosystem where mining was less concentrated

At least we are "identifying" that mining has become "concentrated", The top mining pools will BTW disagree with your statement The 1st step towards fixing something is identifying something is wrong... The worse thing which could happen is we let these things slip by till its too late to fix.

Whether it's even a problem at all is an eternal question. In 2014, GHash.IO exceeded 51% of the hash rate. There was no 51% attack, but the community took it as a wake-up call and GHash.IO's share of the hash rate perpetually fell thereafter.

For years, trolls have been fearmongering about the likelihood of collusion among the top pools to attack Bitcoin. Yet, this threat has never materialized.

Miners can quickly leave malicious pools, and mining pool administrators have strong financial incentives not to destroy their business with such an attack. These economic realities have been enough to secure the system thus far.

Remember also, 51% attacks don't give miners that much power. At worst, they can censor transactions and perform difficult-to-coordinate double spend attacks -- at great cost.

For a 51% attack its not really a problem, as long as mining interest is aligned with user interest, its not a problem.


Eventually it make it weaker against government control, raids or so, if bitcoin really needed mining farm to work Well it would still be vulnerable To crack down censorship like Napster.

And the other problem is mining profitability for small miners and the politics of it.

[squatter]

@squatter it doesn't have to be 51% attacks, Just look at what happened with the bitcoin tx fees when we were "mooning". Miners can definitely extort whatever fees they want... They can basically hold the network hostage.

It's not miners who are driving fees up. They have strong incentive to fill blocks as much as possible. Due to limited block space, fees will always rise as transaction volume increases.

It's users employing horrible fee estimation -- including exchanges like Bitmex -- that drives fees up so much. Lots of exchanges weren't batching transactions in 2017 (and still aren't), which greatly exacerbated the congestion.

[IadixDev]

@squatter it doesn't have to be 51% attacks, Just look at what happened with the bitcoin tx fees when we were "mooning". Miners can definitely extort whatever fees they want... They can basically hold the network hostage.

It's not miners who are driving fees up. They have strong incentive to fill blocks as much as possible. Due to limited block space, fees will always rise as transaction volume increases.

It's users employing horrible fee estimation -- including exchanges like Bitmex -- that drives fees up so much. Lots of exchanges weren't batching transactions in 2017 (and still aren't), which greatly exacerbated the congestion.

In theory in more decentralized mining you could increase the chance of a tx with small or no fees to be mined at some point, either because some miners dont have the same txs, or because they dont sort the memory pool on tx fees, because they are not mining 100% for maximizing profits etc

In time of congestion the fees are almost the only way To establish a priority on transactions, and miners who have entreprise mentality on block mining Will always seek To maximise their profits, if mining work can be capped like this proposal, driving mining cost down and forcing it low, or at reasonable cost on common hardware, its not the same pressure on profitability either.

[flamehowk]

Guys, I'm sorry I don't answer. I am now busy creating explanations for my algorithm and source code. Therefore, I will answer everyone who wrote to me when I finish this question. OK?

Today I added a few pictures to the description of the main topic according to my algorithm, maybe this will help you better understand my algorithm.

Next, I plan to post the first video in which I will show the code of my algorithm and explain how it works. Wait a bit and I will do it. I think I’ll be in time today.

[Tonteus]

The principles and traditions of cryptocurrencies must be preserved, we must remember Satoshi.