PoW is not what makes Bitcoin secure

[FreeStreamer]

So far I interpreted that what you mean is 'difficulty attacking the network' as a measure but after this post I think you are referring to the Bitcoin market, Can you explain how the number of people holding bitcoin or the price of bitcoin makes the Bitcoin network safe?
Now I am really interested in understanding your context using the word 'size'.
not just functionality. This is definitely a security feature. This helps maintain the decentralized transaction recording process in the blockchain

It's not the number of people holding bitcoin. It's Bitcoins enormous hashrate. The attacker would have to hijack 51% of the hashrate and that is simply too costly as he needs the hardware and electricity to produce that 51% of the current hashrate.

[aundroid]

Let me help you. A mining pool is not same as a miner merger. Pools are not static. It's still decentralized anonymous. The pools do not control the miners and the hashrate the miners control it and Moneros miners are independent anonymous people and not merged as a corporation with CEO like Blockstream.

Of course there is a difference between pool centralization and hardware centralization.
But although the pools don't control the hardware, they do control the hashrate. (until the miners switch to a different pool)
What you can clearly see with Monero is pool centralization, new miners apparently tend to join the largest pool.
Hardware centralization is a different problem.

[Wind_FURY]

So far I interpreted that what you mean is 'difficulty attacking the network' as a measure but after this post I think you are referring to the Bitcoin market, Can you explain how the number of people holding bitcoin or the price of bitcoin makes the Bitcoin network safe?
Now I am really interested in understanding your context using the word 'size'.
not just functionality. This is definitely a security feature. This helps maintain the decentralized transaction recording process in the blockchain

It's not the number of people holding bitcoin. It's Bitcoins enormous hashrate. The attacker would have to hijack 51% of the hashrate and that is simply too costly as he needs the hardware and electricity to produce that 51% of the current hashrate.

In theory, some people claim that more than 51% of all hashing power is already controlled by miners from China.

It's the game theory that's securing the network. Why would they endanger their position, by being thrown out of the network, by an army of full nodes for a double-spend?

[jpnl0006]

I had many comments saying that the Proof-of-Work algorithm is what makes Bitcoin secure and resist the 51% attack. This is not true. What makes Bitcoin practically resilient to the 51% attack is its size. Because of Bitcoins size it's extremely expensive to perform this attack and therefore nobody will likely do it. But also because of Bitcoins size and because it doesn't really scale, it's very slow. Also Proof-of-Work algorithm is still very susceptible to the 51% attack.

So what's you point here 
If the Bitcoin network is large, shouldn't that be good news? 
What's the point of decentralization then?
I don't see any point you are trying to make here except shill a less popular Monero. If you wanna discuss Monero, head over to the altcoins discussion board.

Monero is basically everything Bitcoin promised to be.

What did bitcoin promise to be?

Exactly my point. i couldn't pick out the exact point. reading the topic and checking out what was said. to summarise, bitcoin is the realm deal whether or not there is 51% attack or not, Bitcoin still remains the First mover of the blockchain technology and also the Secured network i know about.

[FreeStreamer]

Let me help you. A mining pool is not same as a miner merger. Pools are not static. It's still decentralized anonymous. The pools do not control the miners and the hashrate the miners control it and Moneros miners are independent anonymous people and not merged as a corporation with CEO like Blockstream.

Of course there is a difference between pool centralization and hardware centralization.
But although the pools don't control the hardware, they do control the hashrate. (until the miners switch to a different pool)
What you can clearly see with Monero is pool centralization, new miners apparently tend to join the largest pool.
Hardware centralization is a different problem.

Yes, Bitcoin is hardware centralized with most miners being governed by Blockstream corporation. In Monero any miner is free to switch pool at any time or start their own pool. Pools have really nothing to do with centralization. Pools do not control or govern anything. They are just pools. Centralization means to be placed under one central governance. So as long as there is two pools and people are free to switch, there is no centralization going on there. The larger the pool the smaller fees it has, that's why people join large pools.

[FreeStreamer]

So far I interpreted that what you mean is 'difficulty attacking the network' as a measure but after this post I think you are referring to the Bitcoin market, Can you explain how the number of people holding bitcoin or the price of bitcoin makes the Bitcoin network safe?
Now I am really interested in understanding your context using the word 'size'.
not just functionality. This is definitely a security feature. This helps maintain the decentralized transaction recording process in the blockchain

It's not the number of people holding bitcoin. It's Bitcoins enormous hashrate. The attacker would have to hijack 51% of the hashrate and that is simply too costly as he needs the hardware and electricity to produce that 51% of the current hashrate.

In theory, some people claim that more than 51% of all hashing power is already controlled by miners from China.

It's the game theory that's securing the network. Why would they endanger their position, by being thrown out of the network, by an army of full nodes for a double-spend?

Yes this is true. I think this is one reason why there is an attack on Bitcoin in USA. The Trump administration doesn't like it probably because of this reason. It's not very patriotic. Bitfinex and Tether are run by a Dutch guy who lives in Hong Kong. Blockstream's British CEO Adam Back lives on Malta and the parent company AXA group is a French insurance company. So the main players with Bitcoin seem to be scattered around the globe in different tax havens. Monero however had the ASIC resistance going on. China is the only country in the world that manufactures ASIC miners, so I think the purpose there was actually to block China from becoming a majority hash contributor to Monero as well.

[Wind_FURY]

So far I interpreted that what you mean is 'difficulty attacking the network' as a measure but after this post I think you are referring to the Bitcoin market, Can you explain how the number of people holding bitcoin or the price of bitcoin makes the Bitcoin network safe?
Now I am really interested in understanding your context using the word 'size'.
not just functionality. This is definitely a security feature. This helps maintain the decentralized transaction recording process in the blockchain

It's not the number of people holding bitcoin. It's Bitcoins enormous hashrate. The attacker would have to hijack 51% of the hashrate and that is simply too costly as he needs the hardware and electricity to produce that 51% of the current hashrate.

In theory, some people claim that more than 51% of all hashing power is already controlled by miners from China.

It's the game theory that's securing the network. Why would they endanger their position, by being thrown out of the network, by an army of full nodes for a double-spend?

Yes this is true.

No debate? I'm disappointed.

I think this is one reason why there is an attack on Bitcoin in USA. The Trump administration doesn't like it probably because of this reason. It's not very patriotic. Bitfinex and Tether are run by a Dutch guy who lives in Hong Kong. Blockstream's British CEO Adam Back lives on Malta and the parent company AXA group is a French insurance company. So the main players with Bitcoin seem to be scattered around the globe in different tax havens. Monero however had the ASIC resistance going on. China is the only country in the world that manufactures ASIC miners, so I think the purpose there was actually to block China from becoming a majority hash contributor to Monero as well.

Who said that Bitcoin was supposed to be for the U.S PRESIDENT, and for the U.S. GOVERNMENT? The honey-badger don't care, and the Fed's Brrr printing of $6,000,000,000,000 will play a part in Bitcoin's path to 6 digits.

[FreeStreamer]

So far I interpreted that what you mean is 'difficulty attacking the network' as a measure but after this post I think you are referring to the Bitcoin market, Can you explain how the number of people holding bitcoin or the price of bitcoin makes the Bitcoin network safe?
Now I am really interested in understanding your context using the word 'size'.
not just functionality. This is definitely a security feature. This helps maintain the decentralized transaction recording process in the blockchain

It's not the number of people holding bitcoin. It's Bitcoins enormous hashrate. The attacker would have to hijack 51% of the hashrate and that is simply too costly as he needs the hardware and electricity to produce that 51% of the current hashrate.

In theory, some people claim that more than 51% of all hashing power is already controlled by miners from China.

It's the game theory that's securing the network. Why would they endanger their position, by being thrown out of the network, by an army of full nodes for a double-spend?

Yes this is true.

No debate? I'm disappointed.

I think this is one reason why there is an attack on Bitcoin in USA. The Trump administration doesn't like it probably because of this reason. It's not very patriotic. Bitfinex and Tether are run by a Dutch guy who lives in Hong Kong. Blockstream's British CEO Adam Back lives on Malta and the parent company AXA group is a French insurance company. So the main players with Bitcoin seem to be scattered around the globe in different tax havens. Monero however had the ASIC resistance going on. China is the only country in the world that manufactures ASIC miners, so I think the purpose there was actually to block China from becoming a majority hash contributor to Monero as well.

Who said that Bitcoin was supposed to be for the U.S PRESIDENT, and for the U.S. GOVERNMENT? The honey-badger don't care, and the Fed's Brrr printing of $6,000,000,000,000 will play a part in Bitcoin's path to 6 digits.

Nobody said that, but It's obvious that it's a globalist plan to subvert national institutions. Also from my libertarian P2P, decentralization and digital rights activist point of view it's actually not very adequate.