Is Bitcoin not decentralized anymore?

[Gyrsur]

Proof of Activity: Extending Bitcoin’s Proof of Work via Proof of Stake

http://eprint.iacr.org/2014/452.pdf

No, no, no, no.

PoS is a great way to shell out lots of coins to those who already have lots of coins, or the world's greatest pre-mine scamming system ever.

Sure, it may eliminate PoW issues, but giving out the coins is far worse than mining them at a high difficulty. I'd rather have the community mine then have them sit there and collect coins for no reason. And, guess what! Few coins with PoS have been very successful in terms of adoption...

PoA is not PoS. read the paper. Activity (run a full node) is the matter for which the full node receive a portion of the reward sometimes. not only the strongest ones also the not so strongest ones. and this will help to develop the network of full nodes. otherwise it will turn to centralization in the next time because there is no incentive to run a full node with little hash power. little hash power will go into pools as the situation is since years. it is time to change the minting process. now!

Money supply

With pure Proof of Stake cryptocurrencies, distributing the coins to the interested parties in fair manner is
less straightforward than with PoW cryptocurrencies. For example, it is informative to observe the hardships
that Ripple runs into as it handles the initial distribution of its built-in coin [38].

With PoA, we have the benet of the PoW aspect that is incorporated into the system, which can be
used for handling the initial distribution of the coins. However, if the PoA protocol species that the block
reward subsidy is divided about equally between the miner and the N lucky stakeholders, starting from the
genesis block, then this is likely to enable the rich to get richer in an unfair manner. One alternative is to
use a pure PoW protocol until the first block reward halving after 4 years, and only then roll out the full
PoA scheme. Another alternative is to always give the entire reward subsidy to the PoW miner who solved
the block, and share the transaction fees between this miner and the N lucky stakeholders. This may imply
that users will have to pay nontrivial transaction fees starting from the genesis block, in order to incentivize
stakeholders to run full online nodes. However, it is reasonable to expect that the fees paid to stakeholders
would not be excessive. This should mean that the added incentive to hoard will be small, i.e. the fees can
be a nice added bonus if the stakeholder wishes to save the coins anyway, but if she has alternative uses for
the wealth then these fees will not be enough to make her hold.

The apportionment can be specied according to certain constants. The portion that goes to the N^th
stakeholder should be relatively big, unless perhaps if all the N lucky stakeholders must maintain the UTXO
set (see Section 3.2.2). E.g., with N = 3 the protocol can dictate that 1/2 of the reward goes the miner, 1/4
goes to the 3rd stakeholder, and 1/8 goes to each of the two other stakeholders. The apportionment can also
be dynamic, in accordance with Section 3.2.1.

[ChuckOne]

Chancing the mining process is impossible, right?

[phillipsjk]

Changing the mining process is impossible, right?

No, not impossible. Just not a good idea if you want some consistency in the experiment called Bitcoin.

This is one area where altcoins are actually useful: they can try out new mining algorithms without disrupting everybody.

[devphp]

Changing the mining process is impossible, right?

No, not impossible. Just not a good idea if you want some consistency in the experiment called Bitcoin.

This is one area where altcoins are actually useful: they can try out new mining algorithms without disrupting everybody.

Not a good idea = impossible in practical terms. Until SHTF aka something breaks on a major scale, nothing will be changed.

[rext]

Changing the mining process is impossible, right?

No, not impossible. Just not a good idea if you want some consistency in the experiment called Bitcoin.

This is one area where altcoins are actually useful: they can try out new mining algorithms without disrupting everybody.

agreed dude.

[Ludi]

Changing the mining process is impossible, right?

No, not impossible. Just not a good idea if you want some consistency in the experiment called Bitcoin.

This is one area where altcoins are actually useful: they can try out new mining algorithms without disrupting everybody.

Probably one of the only good uses of alt coins. some of them do have interesting algorithms ill give them that.

[ChuckOne]

So, we wait until some Altcoin takes over?

[rext]

So, we wait until some Altcoin takes over?

Nope, not gonna happen, for we will take action.

[Yakamoto]

So, we wait until some Altcoin takes over?

Nope, not gonna happen, for we will take action.

Exactly! The action will be people selling their BTC for the coin! It's foolproof!

In all honesty, however, there may very well be a alt-coin used for "everyday" stuff, but Bitcoin will always be the gold reserve for those currencies.

I expect an alt-coin is the future for everyday use, but Bitcoin will always be the gold backing for every crypto, until it eventually dies for whatever reason.

[Dr. Pepper]

It's still decentralised. Anyone who thinks differently doesn't know what decentralisation is.

[ChuckOne]

It's still decentralised. Anyone who thinks differently doesn't know what decentralisation is.

Then, you might enlighten us with your definition of decentralization.

[Yakamoto]

It's still decentralised. Anyone who thinks differently doesn't know what decentralisation is.

Then, you might enlighten us with your definition of decentralization.

I think this is what he means:

1. The monetary supply is still not changeable without the devs doing something.
2. A 51% attack is not occurring, and as such, no transactions are currently being controlled.
3. No one person owns more than 15% of BTC in existence. As such, it is difficult to control supply and demand without at least 25% of said commodity or item.
4. There is still no central bank
5. The money is still being generated at a predictable rate. There is no super damaging inflation.
6. The people are still controlling (A decent amount) the amount being generated, as well as countering large pools.

I honestly cannot understand why people still think it's NOT decentralized. Please, enlighten me. But after looking at everything, the only "centralized" thing is that everyone is still claiming GHash is still at 49%, when no-one bothers to look.

Tell me YOUR definition of centralization.

[doldgigger]

Proof of Activity: Extending Bitcoin’s Proof of Work via Proof of Stake

http://eprint.iacr.org/2014/452.pdf

No, no, no, no.

PoS is a great way to shell out lots of coins to those who already have lots of coins, or the world's greatest pre-mine scamming system ever.

Sure, it may eliminate PoW issues, but giving out the coins is far worse than mining them at a high difficulty. I'd rather have the community mine then have them sit there and collect coins for no reason. And, guess what! Few coins with PoS have been very successful in terms of adoption...

PoA is not PoS. read the paper. Activity (run a full node) is the matter for which the full node receive a portion of the reward sometimes. not only the strongest ones also the not so strongest ones. and this will help to develop the network of full nodes. otherwise it will turn to centralization in the next time because there is no incentive to run a full node with little hash power. little hash power will go into pools as the situation is since years. it is time to change the minting process. now!

It does look interesting, but is there any evidence on PoA being stable enough for production? In the paper, they already mention game-theoretic holes in the protocol. There are solutions provided, but how high is the chance that there will be more flaws? Is there an implementation in the wild?

[CoolBliss]

"But 51%er can turn dishonest at any moment, for there is a huge difference between someone who only holds 49% of the revenue, and someone who holds 51%. A 49%er can collect only 49% of the rewards if they are honest; if they engage in selfish mining, they can collect almost 100% of the rewards, but they cannot launch a full 51% attack. A 51%er can collect 100% of the mining rewards."

The article is wrong in general simply because there is no specific number that is important. It is a gradual change. "51% attack" is simple to say and became the common language used to describe the weakness. The higher one group goes, the more confirmations are needed to confirm mining and transactions because there is a higher and higher risk of doublespend and other consensus attacks succeeding for a given confirmation. We are at risk at 40% and at 60%, and technically the other percentages too.

I am pretty much regurgitating a reminder of this very fact from the front page of r/bitcoin this week.

[NotAtOld]

The article is wrong in general simply because there is no specific number that is important. It is a gradual change.

no, that's wrong. 50% is a magic number. with less than that, a malicious miner and only undo a few blocks at a time when they run lucky, but the rest of the network will overtake them if they don't publish their side-mined chain asap. but with 50%+1 they can mine in secret knowing they will be guaranteed to have the longest chain if they mine long enough. so with 49% of the network, they can undo maybe 5 or 10 blocks at a time, and they have to publish them right away or risk the network overtaking them. with 51% then can undo 10000 blocks whenever they want without worry. it is a BIG difference and it most certainly IS a magic number.

[Aricoin_Mike]

The article is wrong in general simply because there is no specific number that is important. It is a gradual change.

no, that's wrong. 50% is a magic number. with less than that, a malicious miner and only undo a few blocks at a time when they run lucky, but the rest of the network will overtake them if they don't publish their side-mined chain asap. but with 50%+1 they can mine in secret knowing they will be guaranteed to have the longest chain if they mine long enough. so with 49% of the network, they can undo maybe 5 or 10 blocks at a time, and they have to publish them right away or risk the network overtaking them. with 51% then can undo 10000 blocks whenever they want without worry. it is a BIG difference and it most certainly IS a magic number.

That could be a big problem!

[DannyHamilton]

The article is wrong in general simply because there is no specific number that is important. It is a gradual change.

no, that's wrong. 50% is a magic number. with less than that, a malicious miner and only undo a few blocks at a time when they run lucky, but the rest of the network will overtake them if they don't publish their side-mined chain asap. but with 50%+1 they can mine in secret knowing they will be guaranteed to have the longest chain if they mine long enough. so with 49% of the network, they can undo maybe 5 or 10 blocks at a time, and they have to publish them right away or risk the network overtaking them. with 51% then can undo 10000 blocks whenever they want without worry. it is a BIG difference and it most certainly IS a magic number.

A solo miner with > 50%?  Yes.

A mining pool with > 50%?  No.

Imagine for a moment if GHash.io doesn't show any solved blocks on the publicly shared blockchain for the next 10000 blocks (70 days).  None of the miners get any payouts.  How many miners do you think will continue to run their equipment in a pool that pays them absolutely nothing for 70 days?