31–40 of 344 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The two are not unrelated. If a protocol change creates a forked chain then acceptance of that protocol change is determined by mining the forked chain.
I do not think that is true. The winning chain will be the one where most people accept the coins from. Miner will only follow.
Quakers, despite being religiously-motivated to pursue non-hierarchical expression[2], necessarily adopt organizational structure: committees, clerks of committees, group decision-making about who will take certain roles, i.e. "meetings for worship with attention to business." There is some natural and arguably necessary inclination toward roles and authority for the sake of organizational clarity and efficiency.
What it does not have is empowered leaders with explicit authority, rather positions are cast as being in service of one another, in organizing groups of effort rather than controlling the outcome of the group, and thus tend toward eliciting the active participation of all. Care and attention are taken to minimize the gravitation toward arbitrary and unaccountable authority.
Bitcoin takes a similar approach - necessary roles expressed in service of one another / the general effort, with attention toward guarding against arbitrary or negative expression.
The other side of this relates to thought leadership - in some sense speakers naturally have authority via the Pareto Principle's natural tendency to distribute virtues unequally. However, by embracing a consensus-oriented development practice, the general perspectives are a check against individual mistakes or abuses by those empowered by position or circumstance.
I think maintaining the balance between the gravity of centralization vs the beauty and safety of decentralization requires a continuous effort. Thankfully, it is not solely up to the developers to ensure this - developers, node operators, and miners can each and all be active by refusing to upgrade or otherwise by forking the codebase. I would say that's the key ultimate check against the centralization, that every individual has the ability to vote with their node / personal activity. I'll be curious to hear if the article addressed any of that.
[1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits?author=Empact
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the same vein: Could we perhaps have the titled changed to something more descriptive? "The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money" better describes that this is about the governing process of the protocol development rather than mining.
The mining is also pretty centralised these days: https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/mining/pools/ And the Chinese company that produces the most asic miners (Bitmain)... also runs a mining pool. Gambling. In a Casino. Shocking.
The paper seems to focus more about the political/organisational problem, which to me seem more inherent and harder to solve.
Note to commenters: In this context "Bitcoin production" is not mining; they're talking about the development of the protocol being centralized.
The two are not unrelated. If a protocol change creates a forked chain then acceptance of that protocol change is determined by mining the forked chain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitcoin decision making is channeled down a funnel: Core Developers make suggestions and the Lead Developer (and those given commit access) sign off on those decisions. Those decisions are then voted for by miners who are (relatively) centralised in that roughly 5 mining pool companies control the vast majority of hashing power used to vote on those decisions. Meanwhile large wallet/exchange companies who control vas…
Holders of Bitcoin also have a say in what forks are viable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The mining is also pretty centralised these days: https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/mining/pools/ And the Chinese company that produces the most asic miners (Bitmain)... also runs a mining pool. Gambling. In a Casino. Shocking.
Yes, true, and as the paper points out they are related. But the mining centralisation story is basically "water is wet" in 2020 for people interested in this. And as a many commenters here show, the mining centralisation problem is being thought about in technological ways ($BUZZWORD)... The paper seems to focus more about the political/organisational problem, which to me seem more inherent and harder to solve.
ah who am I kidding, of course I do!
is water actually wet tho?
I still hope that they listen to reason and increase bitcoin’s ability to scale. We are all held hostage by a tiny cabal of developers that think they know what is best and want bitcoin to have a perversely small block size and pitiful 7 transactions per second top speed.
I still hope that they listen to reason and increase bitcoin’s ability to scale. We are all held hostage by a tiny cabal of developers that think they know what is best and want bitcoin to have a perversely small block size and pitiful 7 transactions per second top speed.
I still hope that they listen to reason and increase bitcoin’s ability to scale. We are all held hostage by a tiny cabal of developers that think they know what is best and want bitcoin to have a perversely small block size and pitiful 7 transactions per second top speed.
I didn't know it was that bad. That couldn't scale to a small city =/