Would bitcoin be better if all users had the same hashrate? If all users were 1

[hsdjkahskjdh]

funny part is the current system as is, is not a get rich quick scheme, its a break even to cover costs+ sensible profit over all(balancing the peaks and dips of hashrate, difficulty and competition)

however your idea to reset the security not only is a failed math test where you didnt calculate the economics of, but also would leave the network vulnerable
the only people who would present an idea to reset the system are the greedy that want to get 50btc for 10mins of no effort hoping one day it will make them a millionaire.. meaning you were the one hoping to get rich by being rewarded many btc for little effort

frank I do not want any btc, you can have it all, infact I burnt all my supply on purpose and will keep burning supply until it hits 0 circulating supply and your coin is worthless because there is no supply. However dust, lost passwords, broken hardware and dead people will eventually do this over time then what good is it for humanity? Do you think?
I do not want to "Get rich" in the terms you think. You are way off, I want to enrich my species.
I am not even talking about resetting security, but the fact is security would be more decentralized with non $cam methods and more secure for all of humanity if people could only be 1 accumulation node and 1 vote.
I do not want anything for me, it is for your family and friends kids. You are just to retarded to realize. You do not know what rich is and never will.


The fact is if the bankers wanted to stop bitcoin they would buy all supply and burn it (price does not matter to them retard), but anyone who is not retarded knows it was created by the central banking cartels that fuck kids.

[Oshosondy]

I think if we all had the same hashrate it would be more fair.

Do you know what that means? It means the bitcoin network will not be as strong as it is now. Many people are still encouraged because they join the mining pool but if no mining pool, there could be more decentralized network but most people will not mine and if what you are talking about should be true, people will be using computer to mine or so. Even if it is machines with more computing power, most people will be discouraged because they do not know when the next block will be mined. Also as the blockchain download and maintenance is increasing in gigabyte needed, it is another thing that is discouraging. It is better how it is now, although it answershas its own negative side.

[pooya87]

Would bitcoin be better if all users had the same hashrate? Do not the rich just get richer with this system we have? and eventually 1 person will win.
If all users were 1 vote on the network? (direct digital democracy)

You are very confused about how Bitcoin works. Miners don't "vote" on the next block, they perform work and the reward is for their work. In other words you are saying that people should not work and yet get paid just for "voting"!!!

The supply is 98% premined to anyone born today, why do they not get to mine?

You can say that about anything! Anybody born today will not have any fiat in their pocket either. Does that mean all fiat is premined?
No my friend, you have to work to earn money, whether it is fiat or bitcoin. Nobody is going to pay you for doing nothing and just "voting"...

frank I do not want any btc, you can have it all, infact I burnt all my supply on purpose and will keep burning supply until it hits 0 circulating supply and your coin is worthless because there is no supply.

Another indication that you have no idea how bitcoin works. I doubt you ever held any satoshis, let alone having intentionally burnt any of it. Not to mention that burning coins only makes the burnt coins worthless while it makes the remaining coins that much more valuable

You also can't make the supply go to zero by burning coins because you don't have enough money to even purchase a tiny fraction of the total supply to burn...

[fikrett]

Would bitcoin be better if all users had the same hashrate? Do not the rich just get richer with this system we have? and eventually 1 person will win.
If all users were 1 vote on the network? (direct digital democracy)

You are very confused about how Bitcoin works. Miners don't "vote" on the next block, they perform work and the reward is for their work. In other words you are saying that people should not work and yet get paid just for "voting"!!!

Yeah, it doesn't sit with me in my head either, this concept.
As it was said - it's a utopian set of ideas, and the incentive would be lost if things were the way OP described.

[MaxLevCoin]

The notion of everyone having the same hashrate might not be practical because the network is designed to favor competition and decentralization. Giving everyone equally through nodes would likely lead to other issues like manipulation by people with large amounts of technical knowledge. It would be ideal to see more equality but it is important to consider the trade offs bitcoin's system makes to maintain security and avoid centralization

[NotATether]

The notion of everyone having the same hashrate might not be practical because the network is designed to favor competition and decentralization. Giving everyone equally through nodes would likely lead to other issues like manipulation by people with large amounts of technical knowledge. It would be ideal to see more equality but it is important to consider the trade offs bitcoin's system makes to maintain security and avoid centralization

Do miners really need to have equal hashrate though. Users are not the miners usually. They can only buy as many coins as they can afford, so in a way, the coin distribution will always be unequal.

It's true that the early miners had an advantage but the 98% of btc thats already mined isn't entirely inaccessible. As we move closer to the max supply, mining rewards will shift to transaction fees. The issue with your idea of having everyone mine equally is that it could make mining less competitive and potentially lead to a less secure network. Bitcoin's supply being largely premined might feel unfair, but it's a result of its decentralized, open to anyone nature from the start.

Early miners took on the risk that Bitcoin would not be as profitable as it is today, so I guess let them have their cake and eat it too.

To the OP: at any rate, shitcoins cannot solve any of these problems.

[Synchronice]

Would bitcoin be better if all users had the same hashrate? Do not the rich just get richer with this system we have? and eventually 1 person will win.
If all users were 1 vote on the network? (direct digital democracy)


I think if we all had the same hashrate it would be more fair.

How do you plan to offer a fair play in even in that case? Okay, let's imagine that we all have 1 vote on the network. Is it hard for big companies to create millions and billions of Bitcoin addresses and gain as much vote as they want? No, you also can't change rich getting richer with any system, that's inevitable, that's the power of nature. Strong species eat weak species and survive, no protocol can change that.

The supply is 98% premined to anyone born today, why do they not get to mine?
In 2142 it will all be mined and kids then wont even be able to mine, but 98% premine today? WTF? is it ETH?

Mining is not everything, people have to spend Bitcoins, right? In 2142, kids will be able to run miners and collect Bitcoin transaction fees but to be honest, no one knows what's going to happen in the middle of 22nd century.