pull down to refresh

Centralizing Forces - A Weekend Discussion
4010 sats \ 12 comments \ @sn 21 May 2023 bitcoin
This weekend, Mempool announced their upcoming Mempool Accelerator service, prompting many in the Bitcoin community to call out the centralizing effects it could have on the Bitcoin network.
Mempool isn't the only service to be called out as a centralizing force, they're just the most recent example. Many services from wallets to exchanges to mining pools to LN implementations have at one point or another been called centralizing forces by members of the Bitcoin community.
The purpose of this discussion is to talk about the effects of various centralizing forces on the network, and distill the specific aspects of Bitcoin that must be protected from centralization.
A few questions...
  • Which components of the Bitcoin protocol, network, and asset must remain decentralized for Bitcoin to succeed?
  • Is it possible for centralization to be reversed once a single entity has a majority market share in a specific domain?
  • Which projects or initiatives are most concerning to you as a potential centralizing force?
  • Are there any examples of instances in which centralization could benefit Bitcoin?
write
preview
related posts
390 sats \ 0 replies \ @shibe 21 May 2023
If adding a button to an explorer could lead to Bitcoin centralization then it seems Bitcoin is pretty fragile.
reply
343 sats \ 5 replies \ @DarthCoin 21 May 2023
I still do not see how a simple tool to transaction accelerator could lead to "centralization". Nobody is forcing you to use it. Also there are many others miners that are doing this and from long time not just now.
In the future, I see the coming of so called "scrap miners", the ones that are willing to include in a block those txs with low fee and in exchange for small amount of sats, paid directly to them, user tx could be pushed to a block that they are trying to mine. But in the end this is just a lottery, you never know if they have enough hash power to mine that block with pushed txs. But if they have that luck, so be it. Why not?
This will increase the challenge on the fee market and that is good, all those greedy miners will be forced slowly to accept low fee txs.
reply
172 sats \ 4 replies \ @jk_14 21 May 2023
Because you like the truth straight in the face: Your logic is just the multidimensional shit.
I) Ghash.io passed 51%, "but GHASH was a good pool", LOL
in other words: centralization is bad, but when done by a good pool, it looks better, lol (btw, slushpool was good too in 2014)
II) "This will increase the challenge on the fee market and that is good"
NO, it's not a good thing. Period. You're wandering around like a child in a fog. Because with each consecutive halving, we inevitably approach the post-subsidy era.
So, let you keep promoting harder yet your dumb as fuck logic: "all those greedy miners forced slowly to accept low fee txs" - and some day you'll wake up with your hand in the potty:
i.e. no block subsidy & and Bitcoiners well used to "right" of low fees (I smell a socialism here ;)
If you want cheap fees, migrate to LN when on-chain fees are low - end of story.
"Yes, hate me if you want, for my writing tone. I don't fucking care! It's your problem not mine, if you are too snowflake for my way." :))
reply
71 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 21 May 2023
I already use LN more than you can imagine. You really think that you can troll me. You are mistaken. I don't give a shit.
reply
20 sats \ 2 replies \ @jk_14 21 May 2023
"Nothing induces a bigger annoyance than the Truth"
not sure if the truth may troll someone... maybe :)
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 21 May 2023
You are far far away from truth.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jk_14 21 May 2023
Ok, I understand: your quotes are not your quotes.
Naive & funny :)
reply
366 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 21 May 2023
Regarding the question of which components of the Bitcoin protocol must remain decentralized, I would say nodes. Reading The Blocksize Wars brought home to me the power of nodes to stand up to the influential corporations with OG influencers and the biggest miners. The obvious corollary is the importance of small block size to keep home brew nodes affordable.
As LN gains a greater percent of transactions it will be even more important.
reply
114 sats \ 2 replies \ @jk_14 21 May 2023
"In July 2014, the GHash.io mining pool briefly exceeded the 51% hashrate threshold, which forced the bitcoin community to discuss the possibility of finding a common solution to this threat."
I remember that time. And I remember the community effort and "hype" to move hashrate from GHash.io and spread it to other mining pools just to fix this issue.
That was long time ago, so it looks like there is no better solution discovered so far to prevent centralization other than: educating people. For example: to prefer smaller LN nodes close to you, than to directly connect to the biggest ones.
P.S. Mempool Accelerator want to offer something at cheaper price than its free market price - so this business case is destined to fail or shaddy, tertium non datur ;)
reply
181 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 21 May 2023
Yes, I mined on GHASH between 2013-2015. Those times weren't so many good pools and GHASH was a good one.
this business case is destined to fail
No. Will not fail. Will always be somebody willing to mine your low fee tx. This is actually creating more pressure on the market.
reply
76 sats \ 0 replies \ @jk_14 21 May 2023
Always will be somebody willing to mine low fee tx - but this artifact of the surrounding reality is negligible in the first approximation, I assure you... :) Yes, I know that's in line with your quote regarding Bitcoin miners:
"Most of them are mining to SECURE the network."
But that's naive perception of the surrounding reality... You are so old and so naive still... ;)
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @techfleece 22 May 2023
lnurl1dp68gurn8ghj7um5v93kketj9ehx2amn9ashq6f0d3h8w6t5dqlhgct884mkjargv3exza6jv4ch2etnwsnxkvfaxc6xvd35x5crgerzxcexgcmzvcurydecvgerwwrzx3jrsceex9nxxdejx9skyvmpx9nrqvnpxejrzvecvy6rwv34v4jkvep4xqmrvdc0ecvfw
reply