Are We Being Fucked? The centralization of Bitcoin

[Jason Brendon]

so no one here wants a centralized bitcoin.
But what has happened recently? I heard that there are two mining pools that are actually controlling 51% of the global hash rate.
I felt heart-breaking. If btc is going centralized, then i don't know who i can trust.

I wish i was wrong, but look at this:
https://cryptoslate.com/behind-the-two-mining-pools-controlling-51-percent-of-the-global-hash-rate/

Only true replies here.

[1714102174]

1714102174

[1714102174]

1714102174

[1714102174]

1714102174

[1714102174]

1714102174

[1714102174]

1714102174

[franky1]

foundry is a DCG company

antpool is a bitmain company

so calm down just a little. the tin foil is not needed

..
the whole story is.
people(customers) that want to purchase bitmain hardware(asics) but dont want to run them from home can(option not pre-requisite) finance the purchase and then get the hardware sent.. via foundry.
whereby for a management fee foundry will run the asics for customers that want to use/buy bitmain hardware

DCG(foundry) obviously make profits on management fee's from coin rewards.. and also on the spread between bitmains retail prices customers see vs the wholesale cost DCG(foundry) actually pay for the hardware

bitmain is a hardware manufacturing busines with a side service as a pool for international customers that want to use their pool(option not pre-requisite)

DCG(foundry) are a financing company of many companies. and yes DCG has alot of fingers in alot of pies
(kraken, riple, circle, genesis, coinbase, heck even FTX was a sister company of DCG but shhh they dont want that mentioned much)

https://dcg.co/portfolio/

bitmain is not owned by DCG. they just done a deal together to purchase alot of asics and where DCG profit from being the middleman of purchasing at wholesale/bulk. and charging customers at retail and management fee some of that end-sold hardware to customers

[kryptqnick]

Mining has been deeply centralized for a very long time, I don't think it's anything new. Maybe the op just didn't know and feels shocked because of that...? I agree that it's not perfect, but it's still much better than with fiat, where there's one authority that not only issues but can also 'burn' banknotes. Moreover, a mining pool has tons of clients, right? So it's not like there are a couple of people in charge of 51% of hash. So it's bad, yes, but not as bad as it might look. Not to mention that mining is just a part of Bitcoin's ecosystem, and there are other ways in which it is decentralized as well.

[BlackBoss_]

Mining has been deeply centralized for a very long time, I don't think it's anything new.

It's not new. There are some points when Bitcoin hashrate distribution was concentrated in one or a few pools belong to same owner groups with total hashrate from them are more than 51% of Bitcoin network hashrate.

No 51% attack happened in the past because they don't get any benefit by attacking the network. The attack if happens, only brings nightmare to everyone, including the attackers.

▶️ Bitcoin Mining History

[mk4]

Just a heads up that definitely not all of a mining pool's hashrate comes from the mining pool company itself. Miners around the world can freely hop around mining pools as they see fit. And safe to assume, miners worldwide will get off a certain mining pool if it tries to act maliciously.

[Lucius]

OP, I don't know what exactly is going on in your head, but probably your pools are not working exactly as they should. If you would stop for a moment and think about where the biggest problem is when it comes to centralization, then you would not put miners first, but it would certainly be centralized exchanges that store millions of BTC and act like crypto banks.

Bitcoin mining is generally decentralized, but some people will always see a problem because too much hash rate comes from country A or country B, so once the problem was China, today some claim it's the US. For me, the matter is very simple, if you don't believe that Bitcoin represents what it used to represent, look for something else - you have 20 000+ crypto projects that claim to be better than Bitcoin in one way or another.

[Jason Brendon]

Mining has been deeply centralized for a very long time, I don't think it's anything new. Maybe the op just didn't know and feels shocked because of that...? I agree that it's not perfect, but it's still much better than with fiat, where there's one authority that not only issues but can also 'burn' banknotes. Moreover, a mining pool has tons of clients, right? So it's not like there are a couple of people in charge of 51% of hash. So it's bad, yes, but not as bad as it might look. Not to mention that mining is just a part of Bitcoin's ecosystem, and there are other ways in which it is decentralized as well.

yeah, but that feels so bad really. It should be the way it is. Although people say, oh, the attackers won't benefit from attacking it. But who knows? at least there is a vulnerability in there. You never know.

[NotATether]

Mining has been deeply centralized for a very long time, I don't think it's anything new. Maybe the op just didn't know and feels shocked because of that...? I agree that it's not perfect, but it's still much better than with fiat, where there's one authority that not only issues but can also 'burn' banknotes. Moreover, a mining pool has tons of clients, right? So it's not like there are a couple of people in charge of 51% of hash. So it's bad, yes, but not as bad as it might look. Not to mention that mining is just a part of Bitcoin's ecosystem, and there are other ways in which it is decentralized as well.

yeah, but that feels so bad really. It should be the way it is. Although people say, oh, the attackers won't benefit from attacking it. But who knows? at least there is a vulnerability in there. You never know.

Most pools do not collude with one another unless they are affiliated entities (and even then, it is quite rare), which in this particular situation is a far cry because one is from the USA, the other is from Hong Kong.

[Plaguedeath]

Centralization in Bitcoin mining doesn't mean someone have full control over all of Bitcoin and it also doesn't mean when the biggest company shutdown their mining, Bitcoin transactions wouldn't be processed, this wouldn't happen since there's still many miners who not shutdown their mining farm.

Centralization in Bitcoin mining is far better as long as Bitcoin itself still use Proof Of Work protocol and not get replaced with centralized Proof Of Stake where it's can be manipulated easily if there's a large group control it [Megathread] The long-known PoW vs. PoS debate.

[Jason Brendon]

Mining has been deeply centralized for a very long time, I don't think it's anything new. Maybe the op just didn't know and feels shocked because of that...? I agree that it's not perfect, but it's still much better than with fiat, where there's one authority that not only issues but can also 'burn' banknotes. Moreover, a mining pool has tons of clients, right? So it's not like there are a couple of people in charge of 51% of hash. So it's bad, yes, but not as bad as it might look. Not to mention that mining is just a part of Bitcoin's ecosystem, and there are other ways in which it is decentralized as well.

yeah, but that feels so bad really. It should be the way it is. Although people say, oh, the attackers won't benefit from attacking it. But who knows? at least there is a vulnerability in there. You never know.

Most pools do not collude with one another unless they are affiliated entities (and even then, it is quite rare), which in this particular situation is a far cry because one is from the USA, the other is from Hong Kong.

Hong Kong? you're not kidding me are you

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

Mining bitcoin can be centralized but that does not mean that bitcoin is getting centralized, this one issue with mining bitcoin is the regulation challenges from government since they can present themselves decentralized since they majors their energy source from government supply, if they mine bitcoin doesn't change the fact that it's decentralized since everything occuring is within the blockchain network, the only way you can have your bitcoin centralized is now depending on the source you're acquiring it through and of course the kind of wallet you used, miners have physical location to get them been identified for that purpose and this makes them centralized and not the bitcoin, just as every whales out there will think loud of much accumulation of bitcoin because they have the capacity to do so but that doesn't change anything to bitcoin been centralized.

[Jason Brendon]

OP, I don't know what exactly is going on in your head, but probably your pools are not working exactly as they should. If you would stop for a moment and think about where the biggest problem is when it comes to centralization, then you would not put miners first, but it would certainly be centralized exchanges that store millions of BTC and act like crypto banks.

Bitcoin mining is generally decentralized, but some people will always see a problem because too much hash rate comes from country A or country B, so once the problem was China, today some claim it's the US. For me, the matter is very simple, if you don't believe that Bitcoin represents what it used to represent, look for something else - you have 20 000+ crypto projects that claim to be better than Bitcoin in one way or another.

i agree on the points where you mentioned about exchanges holding BTC like banks.
But centralization comes in many forms. That is one of them and mining too is another form. Same for nodes. But not so much as severe as the previous two.
Anyway, it is not that ideal.

[Lucius]

~snip~
Anyway, it is not that ideal.

If you are looking for ideal things, then you will really spend a lot of time and you will probably never find them. Bitcoin is not ideal, and neither is everything that surrounds it, whether it is mining, trading or the "slowness" of transactions. What I want to say is that if you're looking for a flaw in something, you'll always find it, it's just a matter of time.

On the other hand, look at all the crypto alternatives that exist and compete with Bitcoin, and these are POS coins or stablecoins that do not have any form of decentralization, have people behind them who cannot be trusted and are easy prey for any government. To me, the winner in this comparison is quite clear, regardless of the fact that things are not ideal.

[franky1]

the four area's of concern are
(A)mining
(B)development/protocol direction
(C)custodians/service/exchanges
(D)user nodes

my personal concern is more on the BC vs D

miners cannot change the rules independantly, they need cooperation with the econonic nodes(C) or/and (B) where by if (c) is running code handed to them by (B or A) which can change the network without (D) consensus(consent)

so miners have a few leaps to jump to have power to change the network.. all they can do alone is maybe re-org the blocks back a few blocks to make a few spents become unspent again. which unless they have transactions worth a couple $million is not worth undoing
...
however (B) can work with (c) and threaten (AD) much more easily
and in most cases (B) can just slide in any changes they want now without (ACD)
..
many people rely on C as a "bank" and if there are too many (c) brands all under the same umbrella parent company.. if one card falls the whole stack falls. meaning lots of custodians close and lock customers away from their funds

C is a easy fix. just dont hold coins on exchanges for long periods
A is a easy fix. miners just jump pools if a pool if gaining too muchblock solving rate

B we are stuck with the CORE centralisation with its hierarchy and moderation and their hate of being critiqued and reviewed (unless its done by their own clan) although they 'should' be open to independent/outside review/critique as they are a critical component of the network.. and they 'should' be open to having different competing brands of full nodes offering proposals and user adoption

D well user nodes that are not (c) dont have much power or sway either way. its just now being treated as "following" rules rather than consenting/consensus deciding which rules should be followed(i dont like the sheep follow game. but thats what it is)

[goldkingcoiner]

There is absolutely no need to be alarmed. Unless Bitcoin switched to Proof-Of-Stake, the perceived centralization is basically pseudo-centralization. Holding Bitcoin is not enough, you should also be able to show the effort and work you put into Bitcoin. The work and effort being the costs of mining Bitcoin, in this case. So however large the mining groups are and however centralized Bitcoin seems to be, the miner giants cannot be in control of the 51% forever. This is different with POS because simply holding Bitcoin has no effort/cost attached to it.

Which is why as long as Bitcoin remains POW, we will never see true centralization. Bitcoin remains free.

[pixie85]

That's in fact what decentralization is. It's not controlled by a single pool. 2 pools may together have 51% but not a single one can and it's in their best interest to keep it that way because to have 30% of mining you need to be heavily invested and by messing around trying to launch a 51% attack you're throwing that investment away.

That's not a sure thing if you think about how fiat economies are built. Putin didn't care about the economy when he launched an attack against Ukraine. If you were a wealthy Russian investor in 2021, you probably stopped being wealthy in 2022, or even like some of them you stopped being alive.

[Leviathan.007]

Mining has been deeply centralized for a very long time, I don't think it's anything new. Maybe the op just didn't know and feels shocked because of that...? I agree that it's not perfect, but it's still much better than with fiat, where there's one authority that not only issues but can also 'burn' banknotes. Moreover, a mining pool has tons of clients, right? So it's not like there are a couple of people in charge of 51% of hash. So it's bad, yes, but not as bad as it might look. Not to mention that mining is just a part of Bitcoin's ecosystem, and there are other ways in which it is decentralized as well.

The story about mining is not something people don't know about it. The governments always prefer to keep an eye on people's transactions and control than ever they have whatever they transfer that's why they try to make it centralized making bitcoin mining centralized is just part of their plan, but we all know this would fail and they are able to do that in at any time.

[franky1]

The story about mining is not something people don't know about it. The governments always prefer to keep an eye on people's transactions and control than ever they have whatever they transfer that's why they try to make it centralized making bitcoin mining centralized is just part of their plan, but we all know this would fail and they are able to do that in at any time.

take your tin foil off
governments are politicians that sit in "the capitol" or "parliament" they are not sat in offices typing away at computers watching everyone star bucks purchases

you are confusing politicians with ex bankers now puppet mastering regulatory agencies

its the banks and financial service industry watching transactions and reporting the juicy stuff to regulators

[Jason Brendon]

the four area's of concern are
(A)mining
(B)development/protocol direction
(C)custodians/service/exchanges
(D)user nodes

my personal concern is more on the BC vs D

miners cannot change the rules independantly, they need cooperation with the econonic nodes(C) or/and (B) where by if (c) is running code handed to them by (B or A) which can change the network without (D) consensus(consent)

so miners have a few leaps to jump to have power to change the network.. all they can do alone is maybe re-org the blocks back a few blocks to make a few spents become unspent again. which unless they have transactions worth a couple $million is not worth undoing
...
however (B) can work with (c) and threaten (AD) much more easily
and in most cases (B) can just slide in any changes they want now without (ACD)
..
many people rely on C as a "bank" and if there are too many (c) brands all under the same umbrella parent company.. if one card falls the whole stack falls. meaning lots of custodians close and lock customers away from their funds

C is a easy fix. just dont hold coins on exchanges for long periods
A is a easy fix. miners just jump pools if a pool if gaining too muchblock solving rate

B we are stuck with the CORE centralisation with its hierarchy and moderation and their hate of being critiqued and reviewed (unless its done by their own clan) although they 'should' be open to independent/outside review/critique as they are a critical component of the network.. and they 'should' be open to having different competing brands of full nodes offering proposals and user adoption

D well user nodes that are not (c) dont have much power or sway either way. its just now being treated as "following" rules rather than consenting/consensus deciding which rules should be followed(i dont like the sheep follow game. but thats what it is)

yeah, very detailed explanation. Thanks!

[philipma1957]

the four area's of concern are
(A)mining
(B)development/protocol direction
(C)custodians/service/exchanges
(D)user nodes

my personal concern is more on the BC vs D

miners cannot change the rules independantly, they need cooperation with the econonic nodes(C) or/and (B) where by if (c) is running code handed to them by (B or A) which can change the network without (D) consensus(consent)

so miners have a few leaps to jump to have power to change the network.. all they can do alone is maybe re-org the blocks back a few blocks to make a few spents become unspent again. which unless they have transactions worth a couple $million is not worth undoing
...
however (B) can work with (c) and threaten (AD) much more easily
and in most cases (B) can just slide in any changes they want now without (ACD)
..
many people rely on C as a "bank" and if there are too many (c) brands all under the same umbrella parent company.. if one card falls the whole stack falls. meaning lots of custodians close and lock customers away from their funds

C is a easy fix. just dont hold coins on exchanges for long periods
A is a easy fix. miners just jump pools if a pool if gaining too muchblock solving rate

B we are stuck with the CORE centralisation with its hierarchy and moderation and their hate of being critiqued and reviewed (unless its done by their own clan) although they 'should' be open to independent/outside review/critique as they are a critical component of the network.. and they 'should' be open to having different competing brands of full nodes offering proposals and user adoption

D well user nodes that are not (c) dont have much power or sway either way. its just now being treated as "following" rules rather than consenting/consensus deciding which rules should be followed(i dont like the sheep follow game. but thats what it is)

developers made a lot of changes to btc and will make more.