Dnia niedziela, 20 lipca 2014 02:21:21 grarpamp pisze: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 4:02 PM, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > >>But none of them will have the property that their currency is not > >>under their control. Other than the obvious head start bitcoin has > >>in the digital currency game, that is what bitcoin offers > >>philosophically... freedom from control. > >> > > I realize that's the theory, but in reality, there is a mining pool > > that could easily grow to be more than half of all the miners, at > > which point it could start ignoring blocks from outside the pool, > > which would be to the benefit of people inside the pool. So long as > > the cost of joining the pool remained small, e.g., if you join you > > still get 98% of the coins you mine, this looks to me like it would be > > a stable situation, no matter how much outsiders complained about how > > awful it was. > > Thing is, having seen the possibilities, people actually *want* > this freedom from central control, in a bad way, and they're willing > to act to get it. They also realize that if they, and the entire > community, don't act together to maintain the decentralization they > have... then it's over. That's why ghash.io (the largest pool) just > announced that they will not exceed 40%. Down from 55% to 32% now...
While I applaud ghash.io's self-regulation (!), I do not in general believe in self-regulation. "We promise we will not abuse the system" only works as long as the payout from having the system not collapsing is (by the self-regulating potential abuser) deemed higher than the one-off payout from collapsing the system and running away with the spoils. This is not a good base for a monetary system, I'd say. ;) -- Pozdr rysiek
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
