What's to stop this from happening?

[runam0k]

@DannyHamilton

It matters if we end up with a mainstream crypto where +51% of the mining is being done by major corporation - whom, from my life experience, do not have your best interests at heart.

But the chart you posted only shows a handful of the biggest US banks -- there are still thousands of other banks operating in the US and around the world, some of them very large indeed.

What makes you think mining will necessarily be more centralised than e.g. banking?

[1714872930]

1714872930

[1714872930]

1714872930

[1714872930]

1714872930

[1714872930]

1714872930

[1714872930]

1714872930

[Beliathon]

Regarding the illuminati fears... superstition is the end of reason.

[psioniq]

@runam0k

That is indeed true, for the time being - as an example; today, 2 major US capitalfunds bought the NETS infrastructure (responsible for most financial transactions and state-identification in Scandinavia).

What I gather from that is; that over time, all those thousands of banks you mention, will be owned by few, very large entities.

I'm not saying mining will be centralized - I'm saying it could be.

[psioniq]

@Beliathon

I knew I should have been more cautious mentioning the 'i-word'..

But I agree with you to some extent - I just believe it's healthy to have a look at both sides of a 'coin', no matter how ridiculous that side may seem. :]

[AnonyMint]

Regarding the illuminati fears... superstitious is the end of reason.

Those who confuse superstition with exquisitely researched facts have lost rationality.

For those who think there is no global conspiracy, you are apparently not aware of Anthony Sutton:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVWXmZB1wc

[devphp]

100% PoS coins, like NXT, don't require (more and more) expensive hardware, and that makes it impossible to regulate the mining aspect of it. Merchant/fiat gateway regulation of course remains possible. In short diversification is the name of the crypto currency game.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Miners are not bankers.  Miners are NOT the entire security model of Bitcoin (or any cryptocurrency).  Miners simply set the consensus ordering of transactions nothing more.   It would be the equivalent of showing which power companies supply power to the major banks and crying centralization because 90% of banks are now powered by less power companies than fifty years ago.

[AnonyMint]

Miners are not bankers.  Miners are NOT the entire security model of Bitcoin (or any cryptocurrency).  Miners simply set the consensus ordering of transactions nothing more.   It would be the equivalent of showing which power companies supply power to the major banks and crying centralization because 90% of banks are now powered by less power companies than fifty years ago.

Control 50+% of miners, you can blacklist coins. True or false and why?

If the majority agree with that blacklisting (of illegal activity and theft of their coins), then the argument that it would cause the ecosystem to die is incorrect. Rather it would facilitate adoption by the masses.

[SZZT]

I'm not trying to burst anyones bubble neither i am trying to provoke with my reply here,
but isn't every "premine&distribution" coin essentially a centrally governed regulated currency, at least at its very beginning?

Please do not get me wrong, I am not talking about the success or fairness of any particular coin.

But i do find that if a team of 2, 5, 10, 500 or n individuals are holding 70% of any asset, they essentialy dominate and effectively regulate said asset.
This fact will not change, no matter how many currencies come and go.

Also, although as a poster already said, miners are not bankers, that does not mean that (big)mining pools or exchanges cannot create problems like banks have. Please note, i am not saying they, even remotely, have something in common, they most definitely dont.

I am saying that a mining pool can produce enough power, or hashrates or enough altcoins to be able to infuence the market. Same goes for an exchange, does it not?
I do believe that these problems are too evident in the cryptoworld to need to be pointed at.

[psioniq]

@AnonyMint

Thanks for the link - very interesting :]

@devphp

Admittedly, I have not researched the PoS system - but I should look into it.

@DeathAndTaxes

Never said that miners are banks, but I understand how you would draw that connection in relation to the image - maybe I should have been more clear; that it was the consolidation model and not the specific institution I was referring to.

[josiah__Coinsetter]

Eventually - mining will become so expensive that no ordinary man will have access to the equipment required to compete. Large mining corps will take over smaller ones, and the consolidation will have started, where, in the end - you might have 1-3 major mining corps, whom will have the exact same power that we loathe about the financial industry today.

Even two would be a step up from one (federal reserve). But not to mention, they only have to power to make what has been already designated to be made by the network. They have an inherently limited ability to create capital, a measure that our current systems of economies don't have built in.

[psioniq]

@SZZT

That is what is at the core of my concern/question.

I was hoping that crypto would make 'control-schemes' very difficult - but, unfortunately, it has the potential to do the exact opposite - and I'm looking for a way to disrupt the latter :]

*snip*.. I do believe that these problems are too evident in the cryptoworld to need to be pointed at.

Do you mean that we should stop pointing at potential problems with crypto? or how should I understand that?

@josiah__Coinsetter

Yes, they might not be able to produce more coins than the fixed amount, (even though I remember reading, that you could indeed change the maximum amount of coins if enough nodes are willing to participate - please enlighten me if I'm wrong) but that matters little if a single entity controls the network - as others mentioned; that would be a 'hello' to blacklisted coins, transaction reversals and other shenanigans.

[Beliathon]

I just believe it's healthy to have a look at both sides of a 'coin', no matter how ridiculous that side may seem

I'm distinctly reminded of Christian "scientists" arguing that we should "Teach the controversy" and have creationism in our schools. Excuse me while I puke my guts out.

The only "coin" conspiracy theories are one side of, is superstition. Religion would be the other side of that moronic coin, and I say we throw the fucking thing right into Mt. Doom where it belongs.

[anonuser777]

Eventually - mining will become so expensive that no ordinary man will have access to the equipment required to compete. Large mining corps will take over smaller ones, and the consolidation will have started, where, in the end - you might have 1-3 major mining corps, whom will have the exact same power that we loathe about the financial industry today.

Even two would be a step up from one (federal reserve). But not to mention, they only have to power to make what has been already designated to be made by the network. They have an inherently limited ability to create capital, a measure that our current systems of economies don't have built in.

I generally agree with your sentiments, but when they control the blockchain what is to stop them saying "oh, look all of these (paid banker shill) economists agree that inflation is a good thing. Let's all fork the bitcoin protocol so that coin reward halvings dont happen any more". More profits for the mining pools too.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Eventually - mining will become so expensive that no ordinary man will have access to the equipment required to compete. Large mining corps will take over smaller ones, and the consolidation will have started, where, in the end - you might have 1-3 major mining corps, whom will have the exact same power that we loathe about the financial industry today.

Even two would be a step up from one (federal reserve). But not to mention, they only have to power to make what has been already designated to be made by the network. They have an inherently limited ability to create capital, a measure that our current systems of economies don't have built in.

I generally agree with your sentiments, but when they control the blockchain what is to stop them saying "oh, look all of these (paid banker shill) economists agree that inflation is a good thing. Let's all fork the bitcoin protocol so that coin reward halvings dont happen any more". More profits for the mining pools too.

Nothing.  Except they don't control the blockchain.  You can do decide on higher monetary inflation right now with a single miner and modified source code.  Just modify the client to produce a 50 BTC rewards and start mining.   Of course all existing nodes will simply drop your blocks as invalid.  The fact that you have produced an alternate chain doesn't prevents anyone else from just ignoring your fork and continuing to use the "real" Bitcoin.  The reality is that unless they update their client (or look in the debug log) they will never even know your fork exists.  Having 51% of the hashrate doesn't change that dynamic.

You can't change Bitcoin all you can do is fork it.  The hard part is convincing people to use your fork.  

[analau]

If crypto succeeds, it will not be through BTC.  There's other reasons as well, but no mainstream currency would be publicly mined.

why will it not be through btc?

[psioniq]

@Beliathon

I'm sorry to have brought you feelings of disgust. But, I'd argue that the evidence for evolution is as strong, as the evidence for financial institutions, leeching off of your hard earned 'republic credits', is becoming.

@DeathAndTaxes

You can't change Bitcoin all you can do is fork it.  The hard part is convincing people to use your fork. 

Yes, but almost daily, we see that with the right machine behind you, you can convince the majority of the population of anything.

[DeathAndTaxes]

You can't change Bitcoin all you can do is fork it.  The hard part is convincing people to use your fork. 

Yes, but almost daily, we see that with the right machine behind you, you can convince the majority of the population of anything.

and?  A majority of people are NOT using Bitcoin today and it still has value.  If a majority of people decide to use inflatacoin it doesn't erase the existing Bitcoin network.

[psioniq]

@DeathAndTaxes

Was just pointing out that if one entity has the means to gain control, they would certainly have the means to convince people that 'their' solution is the right one.

..should have used more words :]

[Beliathon]

You can't change Bitcoin all you can do is fork it.  The hard part is convincing people to use your fork. 

Yes, but almost daily, we see that with the right machine behind you, you can convince the majority of the population of anything.

and?  A majority of people are NOT using Bitcoin today and it still has value.  If a majority of people decide to use inflatacoin it doesn't erase the existing Bitcoin network.

Yep. People really just don't get it. Once people get a taste of inflation (read: centralized-theft) free money, they'll never look back. Never.