Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=681655.204802

Broken link

BTW, last two blocks are now:

54 minutes   
1 hour 34 minutes

not sure why you should suddenly start getting longer confirmation times:

[1714039374]

1714039374

[1714039374]

1714039374

[1714039374]

1714039374

[solex]

the 2 *olfi's around here seem incapable of noting trend in the mining distribution charts, ie, moving towards decreased centralization as mining becomes commoditized.

I don't think the *olfis have been around long enough. Distribution was far worse previously:

January 2012                                                                                                April 2013

[smooth]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=681655.204802

Broken link

BTW, last two blocks are now:

54 minutes   
1 hour 34 minutes

not sure why you should suddenly start getting longer confirmation times:

Because a chart showing many months isn't relevant. What matters is the changes that occur within the two week adjustment. It could be random but I'm guessing there is a big drop today because there are a lot of these slow blocks, and it is still happening.

Right now:



Also:

Estimated Next Difficulty:   43,273,619,462 (-1.59%)

[JorgeStolfi]

The transaction rate limits are fixable.  The real problem is the inevitable centralization of mining.  It seems that no one knows how to fix that.  Bitcoin with centralized mining does not make any sense.

Do you really hope to save bitcoin by playing such stupid games?

[solex]

(The link in my quote above does not point to the right post. Is someone misquoting me, and others are picking up my quotes?)

Humble apologies  . Both quotes were Trolfi. Fixed the post now.

[JorgeStolfi]

the 2 *olfi's around here seem incapable of noting trend in the mining distribution charts, ie, moving towards decreased centralization as mining becomes commoditized.

I don't think the *olfis have been around long enough. Distribution was far worse previously:

January 2012                                                                                                April 2013

What is your point?  The disaster did not happen until now, so the risk does not exist?

In 2012 and even in 2013 the miners were not as stressed as they are now.  There weren't as many big farms as there are now, were there?

Cartels and monopolies take years to form.  The big miners and pools are still in flux, but may soon stabilize (centralized). 

[solex]

the 2 *olfi's around here seem incapable of noting trend in the mining distribution charts, ie, moving towards decreased centralization as mining becomes commoditized.

I don't think the *olfis have been around long enough. Distribution was far worse previously:

January 2012                                                                                                April 2013

What is your point?  The disaster did not happen until now, so the risk does not exist?

In 2012 and even in 2013 the miners were not as stressed as they are now.  There weren't as many big farms as there are now, were there?

Cartels and monopolies take years to form.  The big miners and pools are still in flux, but may soon stabilize (centralized). 

The point is that mining is becoming more decentralized, and this much reduces the likelihood of "cartels".

[NewLiberty]

And year after year the bitcoin faithful bury their head in the sand, "if we don't worry about it, it is not a problem".

This is the opposite of what is happening.
It is because we are worried about it that it is not a problem.
Whenever centralization increases, the twitter storms and articles splash everywhere and miners react.

http://insidebitcoins.com/news/a-move-to-curb-bitcoin-mining-centralization/27042

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/9402/mining-pool-centralization-crisis-levels/

http://bitcoinist.net/the-centralization-of-mining-pools/

http://www.bitcoinx.com/bitcoin-developer-gavin-andresen-weighs-in-on-centralized-mining-and-the-ghash-situation/

I've also addressed this issue in public speaking engagements at conferences, as have many others.  Many people are concerned, very few are "burying their heads", and most of those aren't mining.  If you think people aren't taking *you* seriously, it may be the way you write.  It sounds like concern trolling when you write characterisations like: "faithful, head buriers".  It reads like an attempt to gets folks' dander up when you equate them with this guy:

[smooth]

What is your point?  The disaster did not happen until now, so the risk does not exist?

His point, and it is a good one, is that the available evidence points to a trend away from increasing centralization.

I have pointed out that the charts don't tell the whole picture, but if you are going to use these charts to make your case, your case entirely fails.

[tvbcof]

...
The point is that mining is becoming more decentralized, and this much reduces the likelihood of "cartels".

I'm not sure I would take anything as a given just because someone made a colorful pie chart.  Specifically, it is known that an entity with a high percentage of hashing power freaks people out.  Were I running an outfit who had the potential to form such a pattern, I would split things up long before a threatening pattern emerged.  Behind the scenes at a social level reality might be quite different.

Secondly, I don't find it very easy to get much of a sense of how many chips are in a noisy box someone's back room vs. how many are submerged in an oil bath in some datacenter.  Either type could change behavior slightly to influence the pie charts, but there would be a variety of differences in why they would do so and what impacts it would have.

Thirdly, and somewhat related to the above, if a pool for some mysterious reason started to give miners and extra good deal, I would expect that a fair fraction of the home-owner types would not really stare a gift horse in the mouth and jump on over.  Even if they knew in the back of their minds it was a bad idea for the ecosystem it would be sorely tempting to leave it to the other guy to try take the bullet.  This especially if it's the difference between a profit and a loss, and the gear one is running is approaching obsolescence anyway.

I sense sort of a desperate hope on the part of the naturally hopeful in these discussions of mining centralization.  Certainly I'd want fewer unknowns and more knows before I was very comfortable with huge fraction of my net worth riding on Bitcoin.

[Trolfi]

Do you really hope to save bitcoin by playing such stupid games?

Nah, I am not quite as deluded as you seem to be about the impact of posting on a forum. I'm just trolling you.

Now go back and replay some vague scenario purporting to show that centralization is going to kill bitcoin but we are too self-deceived to understand it. After you get a number of thoughtful replies, proceed to ignore them and do it all over again. And then do that again. You seem to think it's a good use of your time.

[cbeast]

Certainly I'd want fewer unknowns and more knows before I was very comfortable with huge fraction of my net worth riding on Bitcoin.

What variables would you like to know to make you cofortable?

[iCEBREAKER]

Do you really hope to save bitcoin by playing such stupid games?

Nah, I am not quite as deluded as you seem to be about the impact of posting on a forum. I'm just trolling you.

Now go back and replay some vague scenario purporting to show that centralization is going to kill bitcoin but we are too self-deceived to understand it. After you get a number of thoughtful replies, proceed to ignore them and do it all over again. And then do that again. You seem to think it's a good use of your time.

Ha-ha-ha, this Trolfi fellow is so funny and awesome.   

How come I never got a vanity troll?  It's not fair!

And by "not fair" I actually mean "not a perfectly equal, utility-blind, Pareto-neutral, strictly democratic outcome."  (Just like JorgeStolfi.)

[JorgeStolfi]

This is the opposite of what is happening.
It is because we are worried about it that it is not a problem.
Whenever centralization increases, the twitter storms and articles splash everywhere and miners react.

So bitcoin's future is protected by the power of twitter storms and coindesk articles? Mind if I am not impressed? 

Seriously, I can't believe that a company would voluntarily shrink because some customers (who cannot choose their suppliers) complain about them being too big.  I would expect it to merely disguise its size, by using two or more diferent names.  Is anyone worried bout that?

What is your point?  The disaster did not happen until now, so the risk does not exist?

His point, and it is a good one, is that the available evidence points to a trend away from increasing centralization.

2012:  3 companies had more than 50%
2013:  2 companies has more than 50%
2014:  1 company (GHash.io) had more than 50%
2015:  4(?) companies have more than 50%

Well, sorry, I dont see a trend there. 

[Trolfi]

Right on cue!

[sidhujag]

Would the real trolfi plz stand up lol

[marcus_of_augustus]

Do you really hope to save bitcoin by playing such stupid games?

Nah, I am not quite as deluded as you seem to be about the impact of posting on a forum. I'm just trolling you.

Now go back and replay some vague scenario purporting to show that centralization is going to kill bitcoin but we are too self-deceived to understand it. After you get a number of thoughtful replies, proceed to ignore them and do it all over again. And then do that again. You seem to think it's a good use of your time.

Ha-ha-ha, this Trolfi fellow is so funny and awesome.   

How come I never got a vanity troll?  It's not fair!

And by "not fair" I actually mean "not a perfectly equal, utility-blind, Pareto-neutral, strictly democratic outcome."  (Just like JorgeStolfi.)

me too!

why can't we all have our own personalised Trolfi ... it's not fair

[JorgeStolfi]

Now go back and replay some vague scenario purporting to show that centralization is going to kill bitcoin but we are too self-deceived to understand it. After you get a number of thoughtful replies, proceed to ignore them and do it all over again.

Not quite:

* I posted a scenario whereby a cartel would force a protocol change that would NOT kill bitcoin.
* It took three or four posts for (some) people here to even read it; they kept arguing that a cartel would not want to "kill bitcoin".
* It took another three or four posts for (fewer) people to realize that the arguments that they had against that strawman did not work for that scenario.
* It took a couple more post for (even fewer of) them to realize that the scenario would in fact be profitable for the miners, and that the users would have no choice but accept the change.
* Finally, one of them claimed that, if the cartel decided to do that, the, rather than accept a small compatible change to the protocol, surely all users would make a big incompatible change to the protocol, alienate all the miners, and go back to the network of 2010. And closed the discussion with "QED".

But you are right, trying to argue a technical discussion here is a terrible waste of time.

[tvbcof]

Certainly I'd want fewer unknowns and more knows before I was very comfortable with huge fraction of my net worth riding on Bitcoin.

What variables would you like to know to make you cofortable?

I'm chronically worried about people's behavior being influenced by legal and regulatory issues.  In spite of the tough talk, it's hard not to notice that when the rubber meets the road most people in the community (and out) capitulate immediately and do what the fuck they are told.  I almost certainly would.  The propensity is directly proportional to what one has to lose.

Also, as I've mentioned a bunch lately, I see the solution on a collision course with the big data companies if it is to survive at all.

Thus, I would like to have a much better idea qualitatively about the nature of those running mining gear, transfer nodes, etc.  This will allow me to better predict what might happen when and take appropriate actions.

[tvbcof]

Me too!

why can't we all have our own personalised Trolfi ... it's not fair

It's pretty easy to set up a sock puppet.  I have several that I remember but almost never use them.  Theymos doesn't even annoy you making you do 5 posts on the newbie board and all that shit any more.  Just remember to use an incognito window so cookies don't get fucked up.  I assume most browsers have such a thing now-adays. (?)