Bitcoin Is Dead, Long Live Bitcoin

> the majority of the hashing rate with high efficiency rigs in well-connected datacenters with low priced electricity.

The only time this is economically viable is when you both have a large enough economy and when your marginal hashrate gains over the swarm are significant enough to invest in.

My point is that if your algorithm is CPU / GPU favored, of course you can make specialized hardware, but as long as the performance gap isn't the multiple orders of magnitude modern bitcoin ASICs get over generic computers it takes significantly more money - and here is the key point - in relation to the value of the economy you are taking over to do so. Where it could cost 100 million to build a bitcoin miner datacenter that can immediately seize 30% of the hashing power on the network, your 100 million datacenter on an scrypt network can probably only seize 10-15% because there is much higher normalized mining participation by end users. It means it would cost you a lot more to get a 51% hashing oligopoly, and for the people making business decisions on if they want to spend a billion dollars doing so they will look at the market cap of the economy they are trying to usurp and realize its not a profitable venture.

My point is that there is also a degree of benefit in how consumer practical the mining algorithms are and thus how much less of a dramatic leap in performance custom ASICs would be. If you have algorithms that do not see the leagues of performance difference between custom hardware and general computers, your required investment for the same effective control are much higher, potentially to the point of fiscal unviability, but even if not that your margins would be slimmer and your opportunity cost would dissuade you more from doing it.

The mining superclusters of bitcoin only emerge because of how much potential revenue there is from doing so - fab a few thousand custom ASICs and you suddenly control a huge chunk of total mining power, because nobodies personal computers can even come close to competing. If you want working distributed mining everyone needs to already have viable mining hardware from the start, ie, the computer on their desk.

Considering that T-Bills have a return of 0.2% right now, that still loses to inflation.

IE: If you actually want to make money, you have to go equities or start up a company.

First, it would behoove you to run a full node on your desktop PC.

What you will surely find is that maxing out your CPU at 100% for hours on end isn't very fun and isn't necessarily conducive to getting other work done at the same time. This is again to say nothing of the bandwidth requirements, streaming videos or playing games for example may become out of the question depending on the quality of your network connection.

This is to say, at 1MB blocks, full nodes on the desktop are already becoming problematic for some users. The warning signs are as clear as day. What's more, to even get the performance of full nodes on desktop to this level has been a monumental feat and one largely spearheaded by the so called "small blockists" - th efforts of Dr. Adam Back, Gregory Maxwell and Dr. Pieter Wuille have been absolutely essential to making Bitcoin full nodes at least runnable on consumer hardware. For example, Greg Maxwell claims testing an original version 0.1 full node would take upwards of _20 weeks_ to sync fully.

Second, Gavin Andresen originally proposed 20MB blocks starting January 2016, and doubling every two years [1]:

> CPU and storage are cheap these days; one moderately fast CPU can easily keep up with 20 megabytes worth of transactions every ten minutes. > > Twenty megabytes downloaded plus twenty megabytes uploaded every ten minutes is about 170 gigabytes bandwidth usage per month – well within the 4 terabytes/month limit of even the least expensive ChunkHost plan. > > Disk space shouldn’t be an issue very soon– now that blockchain pruning has been implemented, you don’t have to dedicate 30+ gigabytes to store the entire blockchain. > > So it looks to me like the actual out-of-pocket cost of running a full node in a datacenter won’t change with a 20 megabyte maximum block size; it will be on the order of $5 or $10 per month. > > I chose 20MB as a reasonable block size to target because 170 gigabytes per month comfortably fits into the typical 250-300 gigabytes per month data cap– so you can run a full node from home on a “pretty good” broadband plan.

That we now see Gavin entertaining a much lesser fork - to 2MB instead of his previously claimed "safe" 20MB - speaks volumes about the severity of this issue.

Now, the Bitcoin core team has proposed a similar increase to 1.6MB effective through SegWit. Hence, the divisiveness of this issue isn't just about the numbers, but it is regretably devolved into a political power struggle with one side apparently wanting to demote the other side. "Big blockists" have long seen no harm in putting full nodes datacenters, backing their logic up with such gems as "Satoshi said this was fine 8 years ago therefore it's fine now". Meanwhile the "small blockists" - who are comprised of the very people who optimized Bitcoin full nodes to the point where we can now have this very debate - believe you need desktop PC users of full nodes to have a truly P2P network.

[1]: http://gavinandresen.ninja/does-more-transactions-necessaril...

Ethereum is addressing this. They made sure that the algorithm was bothering by memory bandwidth, to try and make it harder to create specialised ASIC hardware.

Yes, and on a platform that allows for arbitrary logic, like a Turing-complete blockchain, or just a regular server, Lightning-like transactions are trivial. They can be described in minutes, and implemented in weeks. Due to the limitations of Bitcoin script, Lightning takes 60 pages to describe and is still not implemented. It's a revolutionary concept, hobbled by an antiquated platform.