Bitcoin Mining and Why Trees grow tall

[cr4sh0verride]

So stay with me here on this post and I will try and articulate my point the best I can for discussion.

I was watching this video on Youtube and it got me thinking about how we mine our Bitcoins

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zShHRkwSoI

The central premise is that Trees don't necessarily have to be as tall as they are.. and from an evolutionary standpoint it's not advantageous as it required extra energy to send the water and nutrients further and further up the trunk to the light collecting leaves and branches..
During it's evolution though the trees that grew a bit taller than the others were able to collect more sunlight and able to have more energy to grow taller while shading the trees below.
Fast forward a few billion years and and you can see the outcome now as we have extremely tall tree's with no sign of the small ones that came before them..

Please also keep in mind I understand there are thousands of varieties of trees, plants etc I'm just referring to the varieties that are tall now..

And if you think about this in relation to Bitcoin mining we are going down the same path. If you think of it this way that amount of Bitcoins mined per 2016 blocks is roughly always going to be the same no matter what speed the network is at the moment. The security of SHA256 is rock solid whether you have 1 Petahash for 100 Petahash of speed.

We are slowly creating an environment where it's harder and harder for an average person to be able to enter the Bitcoin network in the terms of being able to use a Miner that is
A. Relatively low on power consumption
B. Has a decent Hash rate compared to the current difficulty of the network
And this is where I believe the this analogy comes into play.. The people with the resources to mine at high speeds and afford the power costs are the trees that grow a bit taller. They are the ones that are collecting more of the Sunlight (Bitcoins) are able to expend more of that energy growing even taller (more mining speed) and you see where I'm going with this.
Until we have a network that only contains tall trees and the smaller will no longer and can no longer exist.

Wouldn't it be ideal if like in the Video we have a Bitcoin Network of Friendship.. an agreement that we only each need to mine at a certain speed to make it available for everyone to be able into the Bitcoin network. I know something like this would never happen and it's sad to say I think it's purely greed that fuels the expansion of the network. You can see all over the boards as soon as the price rises of drops sharply there are posts all over these boards about why the VALUE of Bitcoin should be X or Y against the VALUE of Fiat currency. In a perfect network though It should really have very little effect on the core premise that Bitcoin should replace this.. not be compared to.. But this is just human nature I can't say I'm not guilty of looking at it this way sometimes as well.

I can't wait for the day where I can buy my weekly train ticket that costs $28 AUD for 0.00000028 Bitcoins

What do you all think of this?
I'm not looking for the solutions to all the problems just a discussion that might bring up new ideas

Thanks,

[1714828343]

1714828343

[1714828343]

1714828343

[1714828343]

1714828343

[1714828343]

1714828343

[beatljuice]

I cringe a little when I hear arguments based on "fairness."

If a species of tree all decided to work together and stay short it would change our entire environment. Less wind breaking, less sound damping. Animals would have to adapt to a completely different environment. The tree might then begin to compete with the undergrowth that has evolved and choke it out. And many more possible problems or changes.

First off anyone can get into mining as a hobby (be a scraggly little tree). Secondly people should do other things (be some other kind of plant). Yes there is a limit to how many people can profit from mining, and that holds true no matter how you "spread the wealth." But there is no limit whatsoever to how many people can make a profit doing something else. If trees all worked together they might just choke out the rest of the life on earth, and then die themselves. There are a million opportunities to make money in the Bitcoin sphere without ever mining at all - and most importantly, we need those things more than we need more miners. Start a business people! Don't get a job. Create 100 jobs!

[cr4sh0verride]

In regards to fairness what I was trying to say is that if the Mining part was "fairer" this would allow for more people to be involved in the Bitcoin network
The wealth in terms of mining would be more evenly distributed to allow businesses that want to make money from Bitcoin the ability to have a larger user base to work from
Wouldn't this be substantially more beneficial to the Bitcoin network than a a small % of large miners holding a lot of the Bitcoin?

I mean we have 8 decimals to play with at the moment

That's the way evolution works and to say that if that were the case then the environment would change that would definitely be true. But that's not a bad thing or a problem. It may be that we might have not been around to be able to talk about Bitcoins if that were the case and that's not a bad thing either. Nothing is the end and ultimate product of evolution it's always working away in the background.

You're right they can but my point was the incentive is just not there and as the trees grow taller it becomes less and less. We should be working on spreading the "minted wealth" much more evenly.
I'm not sure where you are going with the analogy about choking the rest of life on earth but I think in this respect it would be a good thing. If there tree's worked together to create a system where they flourished the other "life on earth" would be the Fiat currency that we are tied to now.. Isn't that the whole point of Bitcoin? To move away from a Centralised currency controlled by a few entities? The Bitcoin "tree" network would be the dominant one.. that's what we want right?

The more miners we have the more people invested in the network which is 100% more important in my opinion than anything else

[philipma1957]

The idea that anyone can mine with a usb stick is still true.  
The idea that you can mine at a profit well sometimes that is true.
But if you mine in house like I do .  

3-4 k-watts is a typical max that you can do powerwise.

  In the summer I have to mine under 2 k watts.
 In the winter I can do 5 k watts.

Even if I want to spend to buy gear it is hard to get ahead of the power-cooling-profit triangle. Constant trade up of gear. Turns into a grind.

 ie a  s-1 antminer  would no longer out earn power around 29mill gh of hash  right now we are at 7mill gh of hash  so in 60 days my antminers will not pay for the power they use.


this is not solved by a s-2 as it will no longer out  earn the power used at about 58mill gh of hash.  

that means A s-2 in your hands today will be a paperweight in aug.

  An April to Aug life is too short.  the s-1 had a Dec to June life.    

 So one would be an earner for 5 months the other for 7 months.  

 The cycle is shorter.  Look at the knc  jup it came out in oct and will be an earner until june that is a 9 month cycle.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

Mining hasn't changed in two centuries:

Mule steps on your toe - your scammy equipment vendor delivers 7 months late and underspec.  Same thing.

Doctor says your lungs are full of dust - bitcoin price drops.  What's the difference?

You're trapped in a cave-in, dying a slow miserable death from starvation and asphyxiation - some 3P data center opens up the day after you get your 1T rig.   Eat shit and die.

Some guy with a gun jumps your claim - your wife gets PMS over your noisy, hot rig.  Happens every time.

The worst part is - the United Mine Workers union doesn't accept bitcoin.  Maybe that's the best part.

[cr4sh0verride]

Haha I get the sentiment of your post but I don't think it's that bad

Are you alright though? Need to chat about anything?

In my honest opinion I think Bitcoin would be able to "take hold" a lot sooner than it will and be more effective as a currency if mining wasn't such a race to get the fastest speed you can...
So you can get more Bitcoins than anyone else...

Let me ask you this.. What is a person going to do when after 6 months all his mining rigs are no longer profitable and he needs to get back on top?
He will most likely spend those coins with a single company to get even faster miners

Whereby if it was feasible for the entire speed of 1 person to be accessible to 1000 people you have the possibility of exponentially more retailers/services being able to flourish with the amount of people that have Bitcoins now.. driving up the value and if Mr Big Miner was smart that's where he would be.. getting the Bitcoins from user transaction.. not a warehouse full of Antminers..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CjldZLXiAU

[precrime3]

OP, when it comes to money, its never going to be fair.
Especially in an arm race? never. Sorry mate.

[precrime3]

You can mine with an USB stick.
You can mine on cloud.
You can buy bitcoins or offer services/products for them.

There. Wealth spread successful.

Why would we need to further "spread the wealth" ? Even if we find the "why", "how" is the new question.

The blockchain can empower you as a user/merchant but it won't give you free stuff.

Also since this is an arms race new technologies will appear that may be used in other fields too. Mining gear could break the 20 nm barrier before Intel or Ati.

Capitalism>Socialism

Speaking about the 20nm barrier, do you think that Intel/AMD might use technologies that ASIc brands made? Just seems cool, Intel is stuck on 14nm, wonder if ASICS beat them to that.