Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step

[Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1677 bytes --]

>
>  1,000 *people* in control vs. 10 is two orders of

magnitude more decentralized.


Yet Bitcoin has got worse by all these metrics: there was a time before
mining pools when there were ~thousands of people mining with their local
CPUs and GPUs. Now the number of full nodes that matter for block selection
number in the dozens, and all the other miners just follow their blocks
blindly.

If you really believe that decentralisation is, itself, the end, then why
not go use an "ASIC resistant" alt coin with no SPV or web wallets which
resembles Bitcoin at the end of 2009? That'd be a whole lot more
decentralised than what you have now.

The *percentage* of the community that mines is totally irrelevant, it's
> the absolute number of (independent) people that matters.
>

So usage does matter, then? You'd rather have a coin that has power
concentrated in a far smaller elite, proportionally, but has overall more
usage? If there are say, 5000 full nodes today, and in ten years there are
6000, and they all run in vast datacenters and are owned by large
companies, you'll feel like Bitcoin is more decentralised than ever?
(n.b. I do not think this situation will ever happen, it's just an example).

That's not the vibe I'm getting from most people on this list. What I'm
seeing is complaints about how in the good old days back when Core was the
only wallet and ASICs hadn't been made,  there were lots of nodes and lots
of people mining solo and since then it's all been downhill and woe is us
... and let's throw on the brakes in case it gets worse.

Not for the first time, these discussions remind me very strongly of the
old desktop Linux/free software debates.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2494 bytes --]