The single flaw in bitcoin

[slaveforanunnak1]

here we go again.... sigh.

[wasserman99]

I agree with you OP but some people are in denial about the inevitability of Bitcoin's centralization. They will be their own undoing IMO, but time will tell. One thing I don't agree with you though is that this is the only flaw Bitcoin has. There are many flaws, being stubborn is one of them, as you will see momentarily as the Bitcoin zealots show up to put lipstick on their pig. It is sad that they are more worried about applying make up over the problems than fixing the issues. I was once a Bitcoin supporter, but I can't stand the stubbornness in the community anymore. I stick around here in hopes that they can come to a realization of reality.

Bitcoin is not stubborn, it has a set of rules that it needs to follow (the protocol) which it does.

Centralization is not an issue because miners can change pools very easily, and hashpower is essentially fungible.

I have seen you post in several threads and all that you do is troll bitcoin to promote your scamcoins

[snappa4ever]

Yes, a currency issued by a centralized entity is very similar to the bank's internal systems, which a centralized bitcoin would be as well, do you not agree?

Bitcoin mining is somehow centralized many years since people started poiting their miners to pools, but Bitcoin itselves cannot be centralized, Bitcoin is based on trustless public ledger, very different from  currency issued by a centralized entity where the ledger is not public and obviously transactions can only be processed by centralized entity, because noone else have access to the ledger.

Pool mining does not equal centralized mining. The cost to switch pools is near zero and it is extremely easy to redirect a miner's hashpower to another pool. If/when a pool starts to act in a way that the miner does not agree with the owner of the miner needs to do little more then a few clicks to change pools.

As long as the above remains true, pooled mining will not be a threat to decentralization.

I agree with this. As long as miners have control over their equipment centralized mining will not be an issue. The only potential problem is cloud mining as miners are not able to change pools effectively giving the cloud mining company control over the hashpower

[jangandusta]

well, i'll watch this one, cuz i don't understand at all

[hamiltino]

I've been thinking about this. A couple years back i remember it was profitable to mine bitcoins with my graphics card, that meant it was very decentralized as anyone could mine bitcoins profitably. Then ASIC's came along, centralizing the mining to large scale mining farms. The competition has become so high that only a few farms are left.

Illustation example of what is going on

2009 - 2012         2013 - 2016       2017
100000 miners > 10000 miners > 100 miners


So what is the problem with this? The distribution of new bitcoins is becoming centralized and the risk of a 51%+ attack is increasing.

I just read Gavin Andersons writeup on centralized mining and i've noticed he does not take into consideration the one sided distribution of bitcoin which is a HUGE deal.

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/06/centralized-mining/

[amaclin]

The distribution of new bitcoins is becoming centralized

This is not a problem.

and the risk of a 51%+ attack is increasing

This is.
And we can do nothing with it. Sooner or later it will happen

[hamiltino]

The distribution of new bitcoins is becoming centralized

This is not a problem.

From a technological perspective its not a problem but from an economics perspective it is.

[amaclin]

From a technological perspective its not a problem but from an economics perspective it is.

There will be no perspectives at all after 51% attack to bitcoin.

[RodeoX]

Why are all bitcoins fatal flaws discovered by brand new users?
If you are concerned about centralization then why are you not mining? You are likely not even running a full node. You are allowing any centralization to take place. In the bitcoin system this is the only way for it to happen.

By the way, what we are calling centralization is not actually centralization. Miners are decentralized and spread around the world. If the concern is a 51% attack then you might want to ask yourself "why would anyone do that?" It would cost millions (a billion?) and you wold receive nothing of value for your efforts. People who have millions of dollars did not get rich writing checks. It is illogical to launch such an attack.

[amaclin]

Why are all bitcoins fatal flaws discovered by brand new users?

Because we have clear view.

If you are concerned about centralization then why are you not mining?

Because we do not like any ponzi

You are likely not even running a full node.

Because of no reason for us to help early adopters to take profits

You are allowing any centralization to take place.

No. It is your problem. Not our problem.

By the way, what we are calling centralization is not actually centralization. Miners are decentralized and spread around the world.

It does not matter where sha256 is calculated. The attacker should have control how the block is assembled.

If the concern is a 51% attack then you might want to ask yourself "why would anyone do that?"

The right question we ask is: how to avoid any problems to our pockets?

It would cost millions (a billion?) and you wold receive nothing of value for your efforts.

It would cost nothing. You are blind if you do not see how to do it without expenses.

People who have millions of dollars did not get rich writing checks. It is illogical to launch such an attack.

You will see it very soon. Trust me.

[RodeoX]

Why are all bitcoins fatal flaws discovered by brand new users?

Because we have clear view.

If you are concerned about centralization then why are you not mining?

Because we do not like any ponzi

You are likely not even running a full node.

Because of no reason for us to help early adopters to take profits

You are allowing any centralization to take place.

No. It is your problem. Not our problem.

By the way, what we are calling centralization is not actually centralization. Miners are decentralized and spread around the world.

It does not matter where sha256 is calculated. The attacker should have control how the block is assembled.

If the concern is a 51% attack then you might want to ask yourself "why would anyone do that?"

The right question we ask is: how to avoid any problems to our pockets?

It would cost millions (a billion?) and you wold receive nothing of value for your efforts.

It would cost nothing. You are blind if you do not see how to do it without expenses.

People who have millions of dollars did not get rich writing checks. It is illogical to launch such an attack.

You will see it very soon. Trust me.

I don't think you understand how bitcoin works. There is a link in my sig to the whitepaper. It will answer many of the questions you are confused about.

[amaclin]

I don't think you understand how bitcoin works. There is a link in my sig to the whitepaper. It will answer many of the questions you are confused about.

I think you do not understand the market price of switched off asic  
This is what Satoshi Nakamoto did not tell you in his papers

Update: for example https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=813649

[opossum]

Why are all bitcoins fatal flaws discovered by brand new users?
If you are concerned about centralization then why are you not mining? You are likely not even running a full node. You are allowing any centralization to take place. In the bitcoin system this is the only way for it to happen.

By the way, what we are calling centralization is not actually centralization. Miners are decentralized and spread around the world. If the concern is a 51% attack then you might want to ask yourself "why would anyone do that?" It would cost millions (a billion?) and you wold receive nothing of value for your efforts. People who have millions of dollars did not get rich writing checks. It is illogical to launch such an attack.

I think that the "flaws" that are "found" in bitcoin are really not flaws, but rather, something that people that are trying to promote alternative currencies will try to pass off as a flaw. This seems to be especially true for PoS algo-type shitcoins.

One thing that your point failed to mention is that the reason that mining is (closer to being) centralized (then some people want) is because of pools, however pools are merely agents that can be "fired" on a moments notice if they were to act in a way that the miners do not like. I am almost guarantee you that a miner who has several thousand dollars worth of equipment mining on a specific pool will monitor the pool on, at least a daily basis to check for any signs of the pool acting improperly and upon discovery of such evidence would pull their equipment from such pool and redirect such mining power to a backup pool.

[Eisenhower34]

Yes, a currency issued by a centralized entity is very similar to the bank's internal systems, which a centralized bitcoin would be as well, do you not agree?

Bitcoin mining is somehow centralized many years since people started poiting their miners to pools, but Bitcoin itselves cannot be centralized, Bitcoin is based on trustless public ledger, very different from  currency issued by a centralized entity where the ledger is not public and obviously transactions can only be processed by centralized entity, because noone else have access to the ledger.

Pool mining does not equal centralized mining. The cost to switch pools is near zero and it is extremely easy to redirect a miner's hashpower to another pool. If/when a pool starts to act in a way that the miner does not agree with the owner of the miner needs to do little more then a few clicks to change pools.

As long as the above remains true, pooled mining will not be a threat to decentralization.

I agree with this. As long as miners have control over their equipment centralized mining will not be an issue. The only potential problem is cloud mining as miners are not able to change pools effectively giving the cloud mining company control over the hashpower

Today pool mining really does not make up a very large percentage of total mining capacity, so I don't think it is that big of a threat. Also most cloud mining services have 'private' pools that only the hashpower that is sold by the cloud mining company can mine on. As long as the cloud mining company continues to sell cloud mining power they will have an incentive to act in honest ways as if they are not honest then people will not want to continue to purchase mining power from them.

[MrBig]

I agree with you OP but some people are in denial about the inevitability of Bitcoin's centralization. They will be their own undoing IMO, but time will tell. One thing I don't agree with you though is that this is the only flaw Bitcoin has. There are many flaws, being stubborn is one of them, as you will see momentarily as the Bitcoin zealots show up to put lipstick on their pig. It is sad that they are more worried about applying make up over the problems than fixing the issues. I was once a Bitcoin supporter, but I can't stand the stubbornness in the community anymore. I stick around here in hopes that they can come to a realization of reality.

You're not the only one man. I remember when you supported BTC and wanted to make a physical coin. Things have really started to go downhill around here and for BTC this year.