Is Bitcoin not decentralized anymore?

[ChuckOne]

Hi guys,

I am somewhat worried. This could lead to a extremely bad perception of the cryptocurrencies.

http://lorddoig.svbtle.com/fork-now-and-fork-hard
http://hackingdistributed.com/2014/06/13/time-for-a-hard-bitcoin-fork/

What is the plan?

Chuck

[chaosPT]

They are most likely rumors , nothing do to with the price no worry .

[ChuckOne]

They are most likely rumors , nothing do to with the price no worry .

I care about perception right now.

If the crypto community tells the world: we have Bitcoin because it is decentralized (unlike banks) and in reality it is not, we will look like crooks.

[blatchcorn]

They are most likely rumors , nothing do to with the price no worry .

It is fact not rumor that GHash reach 51%.

Something needs to be done about this.  Currently, bitcoin is neither centralized or decentalized.  It is some kind of hybrid with the worst of both worlds: slower decision making because of the lack of central authority and yet one organisation is powerful enough to destroy it.

[eid]

They are most likely rumors , nothing do to with the price no worry .

If you'd read the links, you'd know that they are not rumours, but calls for a solution to the problem of the centralisation of mining.

[LiteCoinUser84]

Agreed these rumours are a very real threat and one that needs to be dealt with. Bitcoin is no longer decentralised in answer to your question. Anyone that tells you it is needs to check the OED on definitions of decentralisation.

[ChuckOne]

Agreed these rumours are a very real threat and one that needs to be dealt with. Bitcoin is no longer decentralised in answer to your question. Anyone that tells you it is needs to check the OED on definitions of decentralisation.

 

I do not like that.

[Light]

There isn't much that we can do except hope that the devs have some workable solution to the problem in the long term and pray that GHash doesn't do anything illogical that could jeopardise the price. There has been lots of speculation of double spends and the likes but at the moment there hasn't been any concrete evidence of abuse so we haven't had a price crash yet.

[devphp]

Ghash is back to 33%, you can go back to sleep now, nothing to see here.

[S4VV4S]

Ghash is back to 33%, you can go back to sleep now, nothing to see here.

They are hiding their real power.

I think the 51% we witnessed was a demonstration of power. I do not know for what reason.

They could have blocked miners as to keep their hash rates down as they did before, but they didn't.

I would say that GHash has MUCH more than 51%.

That being said, I do have some of my miners pointed at them.

EDIT: On the subject, NO, I don't believe that BTC is decentralized anymore.
In fact, the fact that we depend on the core dev team for anything means it is centralized, and from what I understand the core dev team is under the TBF orders.
Apart from that BTC mining is completely centralized.

[Stevbenson]

Ghash is back to 33%, you can go back to sleep now, nothing to see here.

They are hiding their real power.

I think the 51% we witnessed was a demonstration of power. I do not know for what reason.

They could have blocked miners as to keep their hash rates down as they did before, but they didn't.

I would say that GHash has MUCH more than 51%.

That being said, I do have some of my miners pointed at them.

EDIT: On the subject, NO, I don't believe that BTC is decentralized anymore.
In fact, the fact that we depend on the core dev team for anything means it is centralized, and from what I understand the core dev team is under the TBF orders.
Apart from that BTC mining is completely centralized.

WTF man! You think they have over 51% and you still point miners at them... Where is your logic?!?

[S4VV4S]

Ghash is back to 33%, you can go back to sleep now, nothing to see here.

They are hiding their real power.

I think the 51% we witnessed was a demonstration of power. I do not know for what reason.

They could have blocked miners as to keep their hash rates down as they did before, but they didn't.

I would say that GHash has MUCH more than 51%.

That being said, I do have some of my miners pointed at them.

EDIT: On the subject, NO, I don't believe that BTC is decentralized anymore.
In fact, the fact that we depend on the core dev team for anything means it is centralized, and from what I understand the core dev team is under the TBF orders.
Apart from that BTC mining is completely centralized.

WTF man! You think they have over 51% and you still point miners at them... Where is your logic?!?

Think about it, if they have more than 51% what is 720Gh going to do if I remove it from them?
720Gh means jack shit for hashing power. Apart from that I would like to at least get my investment back (which I didn't yet).
I also have more than that on other pools - I don't like to keep all my eggs in one basket

[BLKMined]

BTCitcoin is still 'decentralized' but it's centralized in a sense that exchanges/mining pools, etc can control it somewhat by being dishonest so, where not ever going to be 100% stress-free in a world where MEN are greedy 0r become greedy!

[bitsmichel]

Hi guys,

I am somewhat worried. This could lead to a extremely bad perception of the cryptocurrencies.

http://lorddoig.svbtle.com/fork-now-and-fork-hard
http://hackingdistributed.com/2014/06/13/time-for-a-hard-bitcoin-fork/

What is the plan?

Chuck

Current state:
GHash:  41%
Discus Fish: 14%
Unknown: 22%
etc

Bitcoin market price has always been a rollercoaster, see https://blockchain.info/charts/market-price  
I see a tiny uptrend on the end, with a little bit of luck we'll soon be at $800  

As for forks or altcoins, there are tons of them.. bitcoin has the largest market share tho;

[PL_CoinTrader]

Short noob question: If there were a (small) double spend attack when would people realize that this has happened? Respectively can double spend attacks be hidden for a longer period of time?

[HeliKopterBen]

The question should be:  is bitcoin decentralized enough?  The fact is when a new block is mined, that miner or pool has  limited control over what transactions get included in that block and subsequent blocks they mine.  Once another miner or pool mines another block, then the previous miner no longer has that limited control.  Also, once a block is mined, it is up to the rest of the network to agree to that broadcast block as the longest chain.  If other nodes on the network find a major problem with a block, then they will likely not accept that as the longest chain.  According to this site:  https://getaddr.bitnodes.io, bitcoin has 7859 nodes in 99 countries.  Nearly all have to agree on the longest chain.  I would call that decentralized enough. 

tldr; Each new block mined is subject to limited attack by the miner who mined it and subsequent blocks that same miner is able to mine.  However, with 7859 nodes in 99 countries, most of whom have to agree on the longest chain, bitcoin is decentralized enough.

[S4VV4S]

The question should be:  is bitcoin decentralized enough?  The fact is when a new block is mined, that miner or pool has  limited control over what transactions get included in that block and subsequent blocks they mine.  Once another miner or pool mines another block, then the previous miner no longer has that limited control.  Also, once a block is mined, it is up to the rest of the network to agree to that broadcast block as the longest chain.  If other nodes on the network find a major problem with a block, then they will likely not accept that as the longest chain.  According to this site:  https://getaddr.bitnodes.io, bitcoin has 7859 nodes in 99 countries.  Nearly all have to agree on the longest chain.  I would call that decentralized enough. 

tldr; Each new block mined is subject to limited attack by the miner who mined it and subsequent blocks that same miner is able to mine.  However, with 7859 nodes in 99 countries, most of whom have to agree on the longest chain, bitcoin is decentralized enough.

So if I was to setup 8000 nodes would I then be able to disrupt things?

[ChuckOne]

The question should be:  is bitcoin decentralized enough?  The fact is when a new block is mined, that miner or pool has  limited control over what transactions get included in that block and subsequent blocks they mine.  Once another miner or pool mines another block, then the previous miner no longer has that limited control.  Also, once a block is mined, it is up to the rest of the network to agree to that broadcast block as the longest chain.  If other nodes on the network find a major problem with a block, then they will likely not accept that as the longest chain.  According to this site:  https://getaddr.bitnodes.io, bitcoin has 7859 nodes in 99 countries.  Nearly all have to agree on the longest chain.  I would call that decentralized enough. 

tldr; Each new block mined is subject to limited attack by the miner who mined it and subsequent blocks that same miner is able to mine.  However, with 7859 nodes in 99 countries, most of whom have to agree on the longest chain, bitcoin is decentralized enough.

So if I was to setup 8000 nodes would I then be able to disrupt things?

Yeah. Clearly not.

[S4VV4S]

The question should be:  is bitcoin decentralized enough?  The fact is when a new block is mined, that miner or pool has  limited control over what transactions get included in that block and subsequent blocks they mine.  Once another miner or pool mines another block, then the previous miner no longer has that limited control.  Also, once a block is mined, it is up to the rest of the network to agree to that broadcast block as the longest chain.  If other nodes on the network find a major problem with a block, then they will likely not accept that as the longest chain.  According to this site:  https://getaddr.bitnodes.io, bitcoin has 7859 nodes in 99 countries.  Nearly all have to agree on the longest chain.  I would call that decentralized enough. 

tldr; Each new block mined is subject to limited attack by the miner who mined it and subsequent blocks that same miner is able to mine.  However, with 7859 nodes in 99 countries, most of whom have to agree on the longest chain, bitcoin is decentralized enough.

So if I was to setup 8000 nodes would I then be able to disrupt things?

Yeah. Clearly not.

Why not?

[ChuckOne]

The question should be:  is bitcoin decentralized enough?  The fact is when a new block is mined, that miner or pool has  limited control over what transactions get included in that block and subsequent blocks they mine.  Once another miner or pool mines another block, then the previous miner no longer has that limited control.  Also, once a block is mined, it is up to the rest of the network to agree to that broadcast block as the longest chain.  If other nodes on the network find a major problem with a block, then they will likely not accept that as the longest chain.  According to this site:  https://getaddr.bitnodes.io, bitcoin has 7859 nodes in 99 countries.  Nearly all have to agree on the longest chain.  I would call that decentralized enough. 

tldr; Each new block mined is subject to limited attack by the miner who mined it and subsequent blocks that same miner is able to mine.  However, with 7859 nodes in 99 countries, most of whom have to agree on the longest chain, bitcoin is decentralized enough.

So if I was to setup 8000 nodes would I then be able to disrupt things?

Yeah. Clearly not.

Why not?

Because your hashrate counts.