Is Bitcoin not decentralized anymore?

[S4VV4S]

WHat I want is the ones responsible for the protocol to make sure that it is safe.
EVERYBODY wants that.

Don't you?

I'm so confused.

I thought you said that you thought it already WAS safe.

You're just concerned that the newcomers don't know it.

I think we need to start be figuring out if you are concerned that newcomers don't know that it is safe, or if you yourself are concerned that it isn't safe.

Bro, me personally I am not worried.
However, every single person I have talked to about BTC seemed to be stuck to the "dangers" instead of the benefits.
The 51% attack being the biggets.
They even asked me: how is it decentralized if one entity can control it?

WHat am I supposed to say?
The core-dev team is working on it?
Are they?

That is an issue that if resolved - IT WILL - make BTC mainstream.

[1713241678]

1713241678

[1713241678]

1713241678

[AdamWhite]

BRO common man, I told you from yesterday I DO NOT want t get into ANY kind of arguments with you.

WHat I want is the ones responsible for the protocol to make sure that it is safe.
EVERYBODY wants that.

Don't you?

Jesus, why are we still arguing?

I'm not interested in arguing... but I think it's important to understand that the beauty of the bitcoin protocol is that no one can make changes to it, as you seem to believe is possible. All of the existing miners would have to switch to mining that new fork, you can't just make changes on the fly like that

[phillipsjk]

I had an idea but Danny pointed out that it wont work because there are flaws.
And I accept that.

But something needs to be done.

I, just like you wantg to see BTC go mainstream.

This is holding it back.

Why is people attacking me for asking for this?

People are attacking you because you don't appear to take responsibility for your own actions.

Hash-power is of global strategic importance; a munition if you will. Why would you use it without a modicum of monitoring?

Why do you think it is irrational to stay off concentrated pools, given the extreme risk to the BItcoin network for failing to do so?

[S4VV4S]

I had an idea but Danny pointed out that it wont work because there are flaws.
And I accept that.

But something needs to be done.

I, just like you wantg to see BTC go mainstream.

This is holding it back.

Why is people attacking me for asking for this?

People are attacking you because you don't appear to take responsibility for your own actions.

Hash-power is of global strategic importance; a munition if you will. Why would you use it without a modicum of monitoring?

Why do you think it is irrational to stay off concentrated pools, given the extreme risk to the BItcoin network for failing to do so?

This is what I am trying to say.
People are attacking me because I have 720GH at GHash - where I have 1.5TH on another pool, but apparently that doesn't matter to them because I am a bad guy.
I didn't bring GHash to 40PH+ with my 720GH.

That being said, the core-dev team cannot expect every miner to keep an eye on the hash rates when they can jsut sort it out once and for all.

People are greedy.
It has been proven even after GHash had 51%. - EDIT: YES, me included - I didn't do anything because I wasn't worried
They did not move their miners.
The hash rate dropped ONLY after the DDOS attack.

So, do you want a trustless system or not?
Shoudl we trust pools?
Should we trust individual miners to point their equipment elsewhere?
OR
Shoudl we put an end to this now and help make BTC mainstream?

What would you choose?

[phillipsjk]

IMO, if we can't trust miners and hashers to avoid concentrating hash-power, then Bitcoin has failed.

Despite comments up-thread, we are not dealing with complete imbeciles here. If you can handle making sure you don't exceed 12amps of continuous draw on a 15amp circuit; you can handle checking if your pool appears to have a dangerous amount of hash-power.

[Yakamoto]

I had an idea but Danny pointed out that it wont work because there are flaws.
And I accept that.

But something needs to be done.

I, just like you wantg to see BTC go mainstream.

This is holding it back.

Why is people attacking me for asking for this?

People are attacking you because you don't appear to take responsibility for your own actions.

Hash-power is of global strategic importance; a munition if you will. Why would you use it without a modicum of monitoring?

Why do you think it is irrational to stay off concentrated pools, given the extreme risk to the BItcoin network for failing to do so?

This is what I am trying to say.
People are attacking me because I have 720GH at GHash - where I have 1.5TH on another pool, but apparently that doesn't matter to them because I am a bad guy.
I didn't bring GHash to 40PH+ with my 720GH.

That being said, the core-dev team cannot expect every miner to keep an eye on the hash rates when they can jsut sort it out once and for all.

People are greedy.
It has been proven even after GHash had 51%. - EDIT: YES, me included - I didn't do anything because I wasn't worried
They did not move their miners.
The hash rate dropped ONLY after the DDOS attack.

So, do you want a trustless system or not?
Shoudl we trust pools?
Should we trust individual miners to point their equipment elsewhere?
OR
Shoudl we put an end to this now and help make BTC mainstream?

What would you choose?

In the bitcoin community, there is no reason to trust anyone. You just have to hope.

That being said, people can earn trust, like here on the forum.

[S4VV4S]

IMO, if we can't trust miners and hashers to avoid concentrating hash-power, then Bitcoin has failed.

Despite comments up-thread, we are not dealing with complete imbeciles here. If you can handle making sure you don't exceed 12amps of continuous draw on a 15amp circuit; you can handle checking if your pool appears to have a dangerous amount of hash-power.

That's my argument here.
We want a trustless system yet we have to depend that nobody will screw us over.

I do not belive that there should be ANY kind of regulation or central authority, but since the dev-core team might be having difficulty comming up with a solution maybe we can join heads and create a TRUST-LESS system that prevents accumulation of 51% network hashrate.

I know I am being a but pushy here, but I like you have invested in BTC and believe in BTC.
And it's things like things that are holding us back.

[DannyHamilton]

I think we need to start be figuring out if you are concerned that newcomers don't know that it is safe, or if you yourself are concerned that it isn't safe.

Bro, me personally I am not worried.

Great!  Then there isn't a problem.  Lets not go trying to fix something that isn't broken.  Instead, lets work on educating others so that they won't be worried either.

However, every single person I have talked to about BTC seemed to be stuck to the "dangers" instead of the benefits.
The 51% attack being the biggets.

Then you should start explaining to them why you aren't worried.  Educate them.  If people don't understand something, then they fear it.  The solution isn't to change the system.  The solution is to educate people.

They even asked me: how is it decentralized if one entity can control it?

And you explained to them that one person can't control it, right?

WHat am I supposed to say?

The truth.

That having 51% doesn't allow them to steal your bitcoins.  That having 51% doesn't allow them to create more than 21 million bitcoins.  That having 51% doesn't allow them to change the size of the block reward.  That having 51% doesn't allow them to do very much that they couldn't already do with 49%.  Teach them.  Inform them.  Knowledge is the key to overcoming fear of the unknown.

The core-dev team is working on it?
Are they?

Working on what? I thought we just agreed that it isn't something to be afraid of.

That is an issue that if resolved - IT WILL - make BTC mainstream.

I agree.  A lack of knowledge and irrational fears needs to be resolved.  The resolution is education.

[AdamWhite]

IMO, if we can't trust miners and hashers to avoid concentrating hash-power, then Bitcoin has failed.

Despite comments up-thread, we are not dealing with complete imbeciles here. If you can handle making sure you don't exceed 12amps of continuous draw on a 15amp circuit; you can handle checking if your pool appears to have a dangerous amount of hash-power.

That's my argument here.
We want a trustless system yet we have to depend that nobody will screw us over.

I do not belive that there should be ANY kind of regulation or central authority, but since the dev-core team might be having difficulty comming up with a solution maybe we can join heads and create a TRUST-LESS system that prevents accumulation of 51% network hashrate.

I know I am being a but pushy here, but I like you have invested in BTC and believe in BTC.
And it's things like things that are holding us back.

Bro, depending on the devs to make a change (which will not make the network any safer btw) is the definition of centralization.

It is up to each and every miner to avoid concentrating their hashpower on any one particular pool

[S4VV4S]

I think we need to start be figuring out if you are concerned that newcomers don't know that it is safe, or if you yourself are concerned that it isn't safe.

Bro, me personally I am not worried.

Great!  Then there isn't a problem.  Lets not go trying to fix something that isn't broken.  Instead, lets work on educating others so that they won't be worried either.

However, every single person I have talked to about BTC seemed to be stuck to the "dangers" instead of the benefits.
The 51% attack being the biggets.

Then you should start explaining to them why you aren't worried.  Educate them.  If people don't understand something, then they fear it.  The solution isn't to change the system.  The solution is to educate people.

They even asked me: how is it decentralized if one entity can control it?

And you explained to them that one person can't control it, right?

WHat am I supposed to say?

The truth.

That having 51% doesn't allow them to steal your bitcoins.  That having 51% doesn't allow them to create more than 21 million bitcoins.  That having 51% doesn't allow them to change the size of the block reward.  That having 51% doesn't allow them to do very much that they couldn't already do with 49%.  Teach them.  Inform them.  Knowledge is the key to overcoming fear of the unknown.

The core-dev team is working on it?
Are they?

Working on what? I thought we just agreed that it isn't something to be afraid of.

That is an issue that if resolved - IT WILL - make BTC mainstream.

I agree.  A lack of knowledge and irrational fears needs to be resolved.  The resolution is education.

Yeah, try explaining to Cypriots (after what happened with Neo-Bee) that BTC is safe...
It's already got a bad name here man.

And I am working on a couple of projects to promote BTC but I need to feel a bit more confident that I can get people to trust it.
If you know what I am saying.

It's not easy after what happened with Neo-Bee.
People look at me as if I am trying to scam them.

And yes I explain everything, but unfortunately even though technology is not far behind here, the majority of people are...
If you know what I mean....

[S4VV4S]

IMO, if we can't trust miners and hashers to avoid concentrating hash-power, then Bitcoin has failed.

Despite comments up-thread, we are not dealing with complete imbeciles here. If you can handle making sure you don't exceed 12amps of continuous draw on a 15amp circuit; you can handle checking if your pool appears to have a dangerous amount of hash-power.

That's my argument here.
We want a trustless system yet we have to depend that nobody will screw us over.

I do not belive that there should be ANY kind of regulation or central authority, but since the dev-core team might be having difficulty comming up with a solution maybe we can join heads and create a TRUST-LESS system that prevents accumulation of 51% network hashrate.

I know I am being a but pushy here, but I like you have invested in BTC and believe in BTC.
And it's things like things that are holding us back.

Bro, depending on the devs to make a change (which will not make the network any safer btw) is the definition of centralization.

It is up to each and every miner to avoid concentrating their hashpower on any one particular pool

Couldn't agree with you more.
That's why - maybe - a solution can be presented that is decentralized and doesn't allow any one pool or individual to accumulate more than a certain % of hashrate

[DannyHamilton]

Yeah, try explaining to Cypriots (after what happened with Neo-Bee) that BTC is safe...
It's already got a bad name here man.

What does Neo-Bee have to do with mining hash rates?

Even if you could keep mining pools from gaining more than 50% of the hash power, it wouldn't prevent things like Neo-Bee.

If that's what has people concerned about the safety of Bitcoin, then you need to focus your attention on increasing transparency in business, not in regulating mining pools.

And I am working on a couple of projects to promote BTC but I need to feel a bit more confident that I can get people to trust it.
If you know what I am saying.

It's not easy after what happened with Neo-Bee.
People look at me as if I am trying to scam them.

Magically keeping mining pools from gaining more than 50% of the hash power isn't going to make people who are concerned about Neo-Bee trust it.  You're focusing your attention in the wrong direction.

And yes I explain everything, but unfortunately even though technology is not far behind here, the majority of people are...
If you know what I mean....

If people aren't willing to take the time to understand why it's safe, then regulating miners isn't going to fix it for you.

[S4VV4S]

Yeah, try explaining to Cypriots (after what happened with Neo-Bee) that BTC is safe...
It's already got a bad name here man.

What does Neo-Bee have to do with mining hash rates?

Even if you could keep mining pools from gaining more than 50% of the hash power, it wouldn't prevent things like Neo-Bee.

If that's what has people concerned about the safety of Bitcoin, then you need to focus your attention on increasing transparency in business, not in regulating mining pools.

And I am working on a couple of projects to promote BTC but I need to feel a bit more confident that I can get people to trust it.
If you know what I am saying.

It's not easy after what happened with Neo-Bee.
People look at me as if I am trying to scam them.

Magically keeping mining pools from gaining more than 50% of the hash power isn't going to make people who are concerned about Neo-Bee trust it.  You're focusing your attention in the wrong direction.

And yes I explain everything, but unfortunately even though technology is not far behind here, the majority of people are...
If you know what I mean....

If people aren't willing to take the time to understand why it's safe, then regulating miners isn't going to fix it for you.

I was referring to the educating people part.....
Hash rate is part of the 51% attack problem.

[DannyHamilton]

Hash rate is part of the 51% attack problem.

Which isn't a problem, so doesn't need to be fixed.

[phillipsjk]

Hash rate is part of the 51% attack problem.

Which isn't a problem, so doesn't need to be fixed.

I think you may be underestimating the dangers of mining concentration.
My latest book-mark: How A Mining Monopoly Can Attack Bitcoin

• Loss of decentralized trust narrative, inability to differentiate Bitcoin from competing technologies.
• Double-spends against 6-confirmed transactions are certain to succeed.
• Selected miner targeting: Pool can reject any selected block found by any competing miner.
• Selected transaction targeting: Pool can reject any selected transaction and keep it out of the blockchain.
• Selected address blocking: Pool can block Bitcoin flows in or out of selected addresses.
• Transaction Differentiation: Pool can deprioritize certain transactions and rely on other miners to mine them unless a (hefty) fee is attached.
• Fee Extortion: Pool can deny transactions from a particular address unless a (hefty) fee is attached to those transactions.
• Complete denial of service: Pool can ignore and orphan every single block found by competitors, thus stop all Bitcoin transactions.

I am considering ignoring S4VV4S. They keep insisting that self-regulation can't work, even though it has in the past (admittedly when the community was smaller). A hard-fork to make hash-power concentration irrelevant would also "(loose the) decentralized trust narrative, (causing the) inability to differentiate Bitcoin from competing technologies."

Edit: in the speculation sub-forum it is often said that Bitcoin is either worth $astronomical_number or $0. I don't think I can overstate that a hard-fork to work around mining concentration will tend to make the latter value the more correct one.

[SRG]

Hash rate is part of the 51% attack problem.

Which isn't a problem, so doesn't need to be fixed.

I think you may be underestimating the dangers of mining concentration.
My latest book-mark: How A Mining Monopoly Can Attack Bitcoin

• Loss of decentralized trust narrative, inability to differentiate Bitcoin from competing technologies.
• Double-spends against 6-confirmed transactions are certain to succeed.
• Selected miner targeting: Pool can reject any selected block found by any competing miner.
• Selected transaction targeting: Pool can reject any selected transaction and keep it out of the blockchain.
• Selected address blocking: Pool can block Bitcoin flows in or out of selected addresses.
• Transaction Differentiation: Pool can deprioritize certain transactions and rely on other miners to mine them unless a (hefty) fee is attached.
• Fee Extortion: Pool can deny transactions from a particular address unless a (hefty) fee is attached to those transactions.
• Complete denial of service: Pool can ignore and orphan every single block found by competitors, thus stop all Bitcoin transactions.

I think this sums it up nicely.  There are lots of things a 51% pool can't do, but there are also a lot of non-armageddon type things that it can.  The hacking distributed guys have done a good job laying things out and make a pretty convincing case that bitcoin isn't decentralized if a single entity is at 51%. 

[ChuckOne]

Hash rate is part of the 51% attack problem.

Which isn't a problem, so doesn't need to be fixed.

I think you may be underestimating the dangers of mining concentration.
My latest book-mark: How A Mining Monopoly Can Attack Bitcoin

• Loss of decentralized trust narrative, inability to differentiate Bitcoin from competing technologies.
• Double-spends against 6-confirmed transactions are certain to succeed.
• Selected miner targeting: Pool can reject any selected block found by any competing miner.
• Selected transaction targeting: Pool can reject any selected transaction and keep it out of the blockchain.
• Selected address blocking: Pool can block Bitcoin flows in or out of selected addresses.
• Transaction Differentiation: Pool can deprioritize certain transactions and rely on other miners to mine them unless a (hefty) fee is attached.
• Fee Extortion: Pool can deny transactions from a particular address unless a (hefty) fee is attached to those transactions.
• Complete denial of service: Pool can ignore and orphan every single block found by competitors, thus stop all Bitcoin transactions.

I think this sums it up nicely.  There are lots of things a 51% pool can't do, but there are also a lot of non-armageddon type things that it can.  The hacking distributed guys have done a good job laying things out and make a pretty convincing case that bitcoin isn't decentralized if a single entity is at 51%. 

Agreed, because these are the main arguments for decentralized systems.

[DannyHamilton]

Hash rate is part of the 51% attack problem.

Which isn't a problem, so doesn't need to be fixed.

I think you may be underestimating the dangers of mining concentration.
My latest book-mark: How A Mining Monopoly Can Attack Bitcoin
- snip -

You clearly haven't been paying attention in this thread, or you'd realize that my response was in reference to S4VV4S claiming that it isn't a problem for pools to have 51%, and then demanding that someone try and fix this problem.

If he doesn't believe that there is a problem, then there is no need for him to continue demanding that the protocol be "fixed" (why fix something that isn't broken?).  If he feels that the protocol must be "fixed", then he should start admitting that there is a problem.  Until he gets over his cognitive dissonance, and chooses one side of the debate or the other, any conversation on this topic with him is useless and unproductive.  Every time you tell him that he has the power to vote with his hashpower, he states that he doesn't believe there is a problem that would require him to do so.  Then in the same post he talks about how the problem needs to be "fixed".

[S4VV4S]

Hash rate is part of the 51% attack problem.

Which isn't a problem, so doesn't need to be fixed.

I think you may be underestimating the dangers of mining concentration.
My latest book-mark: How A Mining Monopoly Can Attack Bitcoin
- snip -

You clearly haven't been paying attention in this thread, or you'd realize that my response was in reference to S4VV4S claiming that it isn't a problem for pools to have 51%, and then demanding that someone try and fix this problem.

If he doesn't believe that there is a problem, then there is no need for him to continue demanding that the protocol be "fixed" (why fix something that isn't broken?).  If he feels that the protocol must be "fixed", then he should start admitting that there is a problem.  Until he gets over his cognitive dissonance, and chooses one side of the debate or the other, any conversation on this topic with him is useless and unproductive.  Every time you tell him that he has the power to vote with his hashpower, he states that he doesn't believe there is a problem that would require him to do so.  Then in the same post he talks about how the problem needs to be "fixed".

Here we go again....

Danny I have much respect for you man, and I do believe you have a lot of knowledge but I don't think you got my point.

I (as in me personally) am not worried about a 51% attack right now.
I am worried about what this is doing to BTC (mostly caused by media FUD).

The FUD that has been going around is damaging BTC rep and it's slowing down adoption as people tend to see the bad side of things instead of the benefits.

I personally am involved in projects that are aimed to promote BTC.

And yes I "demand" (as you put it) for this "problem" to be fixed as to get BTC to acquire greater adoption.

Seriously man, do you not read the news?
NOT everybody has the knowledge to understand that when a pool has 51% it doesn't necessarily mean destruction.

We need to get rid of this issue if we want mass adoption.
And you cannot expect the average Joe to have the knowledge you have on the subject.
If you want BTC to succeed then I advise you (just like you advised me) to put your knowledge and skills on how to get rid of this problem rather than - well basically - go bypassed it.

I don't understand why that is so difficult for you to comprehend.

Gavin himself stated that he has a "solution" but it's currently not needed (or something along those lines).
When will it be needed, when we actually have a 51% attack?

[NEM minnow]

bitcoin is slowly becoming more and more centralized with miners

with services and users it is diversifying