News 50 Miners Control 50% of Bitcoin Mining Worldwide

Kamen Rider Blade

Distinguished
Dec 2, 2013
298
138
18,860
0
Proof is in the pudding, BitCoin / CryptoCurrency isn't as de-centralized as the marketing would have you believe.

If they really wanted to DeCentralize, there needs to be "Proof of Decentralization & Enforced limits of Individual Hashing Capacity" of the entire network.

No one person should be able to have more than 0.001% of the total Networks Hashing Capacity.

NBER's findings regarding Bitcoin mining are even more worrisome for the cryptocurrency's enthusiasts. The study found that 0.1 percent of the network's top contributors—just 50 miners—controls 50 percent of Bitcoin's mining capacity. That proportion grows to 90 percent of the cryptocurrency's mining capacity when the top 10 percent of miners are taken into account.

50 People control 50% of the mining capacity, that comes out to an average of 1% per person, that's WAY too much power concentrated in a individual/entity.

0.1% ~= 50 miners
10% of miners ~= 90% of Total Network Hashing Capacity

10% of miners ~= 5000 Miners
90% of Total Network Hashing Capacity ~= 5000 Miners ~= 0.018% per Individual Miner/Entity.

That isn't decentralized enough IMO.

The upper limit should be Hard Capped / Set at 1 Individual Miner/Entity should be capped at 0.001% of Total Network Hashing Capacity.
 

VforV

Respectable
Oct 9, 2019
367
180
1,870
1
This is nothing new, for dozens of years now we knew that the ~200 top elites in the world control more than 50% of the world's wealth.

This happening in crypto too, is just a "natural" extension of the same issue...
 
Reactions: jasonkaler

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
Crypto intended to democratize the monetary system is turning into another monopoly because everyone is flocking to the same few large mining pools to make their income more predictable? What a non-surprise!

Things are going to get really interesting if people heading the major mining pools do pull off some 51% attacks.
 
Reactions: renz496 and King_V
Sep 16, 2021
8
0
10
0
Obvious solution to the mining concentration problem is to instead grant each newly mined unit of crypto to a random participant in the network, and make the motivation for mining the desire to have more fluidity by the network participants.
 

salgado18

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2007
698
100
19,170
4
Money generates more money. Those who earned money reinvested in new machines, that produced more money for more machines. Never sell, only reinvest. When risk traders lose, their loss goes to big players, who only keep and accumulate, to generate more money. That's the capitalist game, anywhere.

Without heavy regulation by the society/state, it will all converge into a concentration of wealth.
 

Phaaze88

Titan
Ambassador
Money generates more money. Those who earned money reinvested in new machines, that produced more money for more machines. Never sell, only reinvest. When risk traders lose, their loss goes to big players, who only keep and accumulate, to generate more money. That's the capitalist game, anywhere.

Without heavy regulation by the society/state, it will all converge into a concentration of wealth.
And that's screwed up, because the money doesn't feed back into the economy as much as it should - it mostly stays up there.
Companies expect infinite growth...
People trying to get rich quick, so they can be in that top 1% or whatever...
And so on. It's rather depressing.
 

Kamen Rider Blade

Distinguished
Dec 2, 2013
298
138
18,860
0
And that's screwed up, because the money doesn't feed back into the economy as much as it should - it mostly stays up there.
I concur.

Companies expect infinite growth...
Which we need to regulate out of existence and teach them that "Infinite Growth" is NOT REALISTIC and VERY MUCH ILLEGAL.

People trying to get rich quick, so they can be in that top 1% or whatever...
Again, I concur that we should regulate the hell out of it.

And so on. It's rather depressing.
Yup. Too many people want to participate in "Get Rich Quick" schemes.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
People trying to get rich quick, so they can be in that top 1% or whatever...
And so on. It's rather depressing.
Tax unrealized gains and a lot of that make-believe wealth will evaporate - banks won't give you low-interest loans against stock options you haven't cashed in to pay your taxes. Once all the wealthy people have to sell stocks to pay taxes, the stock market will deflate along with many billionaires' ludicrous hypothetical wealth.
 
Tax unrealized gains and a lot of that make-believe wealth will evaporate - banks won't give you low-interest loans against stock options you haven't cashed in to pay your taxes. Once all the wealthy people have to sell stocks to pay taxes, the stock market will deflate along with many billionaires' ludicrous hypothetical wealth.
The general idea is that you will be taxed when you sell it at a profit. You can tax upfront or at the exit backend. Taxing at the exit makes more sense. Not only does the govt get more but you do to. Businesses themselves already pay yearly taxes on inventory.
 

JamesJones44

Great
Jan 22, 2021
69
38
60
0
Tax unrealized gains and a lot of that make-believe wealth will evaporate - banks won't give you low-interest loans against stock options you haven't cashed in to pay your taxes. Once all the wealthy people have to sell stocks to pay taxes, the stock market will deflate along with many billionaires' ludicrous hypothetical wealth.
The issue with that is it may not even be constitutionally legal (16th amendment). If it somehow gets signed into law it will get challenged immediately, once it hits the courts who knows when it will be resolved.

I'm far from 1% but the other issue I have with it is what it will do to founders that take their companies public. It will force them to sell shares making it easier for wall st goons like Icahn to push them out and strip the company for their own personal gain (which will only intensify if they need to keep earning money under the new tax code). The other issue I see is the E suite will just bake this into their compensation plans by tiering out when they actually get their shares. Like all of the 1% laws that came before it, there are a lot of holes in what they are proposing.

The better thing to do would be limit how much compensation can be paid in a given year (base pay + equity + bonus) and then limit how much money a company can keep on hand without paying it out to workers (hello big tech). That way the money goes directly into the pocket books of those helping make a successful company while getting tax revenue from actual income. Instead of some redistribution formula that will only get loopholed to death by people who shouldn't be getting it. For founders of a company, simply outlaw using stocks/calls/bonds/etc. as collateral after a certain wealth level.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
The general idea is that you will be taxed when you sell it at a profit. You can tax upfront or at the exit backend. Taxing at the exit makes more sense. Not only does the govt get more but you do to. Businesses themselves already pay yearly taxes on inventory.
Only taxing at the exit makes no sense: billionaires die or otherwise settle their estate without ever cashing their stocks in, passing their unrealized fortune to their heirs tax-free with the book value actualized to present so the taxes between stock options getting issued and stocks getting passed along never get paid.

Wealthy people have countless ways to dodge taxes since they buy politicians to do their bidding and rig the tax code (and practically everything else) mostly in their favor.
 
Only taxing at the exit makes no sense: billionaires die or otherwise settle their estate without ever cashing their stocks in, passing their unrealized fortune to their heirs tax-free with the book value actualized to present so the taxes between stock options getting issued and stocks getting passed along never get paid.

Wealthy people have countless ways to dodge taxes since they buy politicians to do their bidding and rig the tax code (and practically everything else) mostly in their favor.
Well they then didn't get to benefit the fruits of their investment. But that investment helped the company grow.

And once the heirs cash in they will be taxed. But only the first 1/2 million is untaxable. And they still have to pay tax when they cash out. And in a way this is a crime because it prevents parents from handing down family businesses or farmers lands to their sons.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
The stock option is incentive for the CEO to work hard. If he fails at his job the company tanks and so does his pay. And he still gets taxed when he cashes out.
Bobby Kotick, Activision-Blizzard CEO, has been screwing the company and employees' morale over for years and his bonuses keep going up. Many landmark companies like Toys'r'Us get taken over by hedge funds that ruin companies by gutting them for a quick buck and leave the husks behind.

Too many CEOs are grossly over-compensated. Many are actively destroying value instead of creating it. There is no way in hell that Bezos and Musk worked so hard personally as to be worth over a hundred billions. IMO, there is no contribution to humanity by a single person that can possibly justify being worth a billion dollars.
 

jasonkaler

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2011
512
11
19,365
105
One of the previous bitcoin price crashes was because there was one group of miners that got close to having 50% of all capacity.
That would give them total control over the entire blockchain as they could reject everyone else's transactions.
 
Bobby Kotick, Activision-Blizzard CEO, has been screwing the company and employees' morale over for years and his bonuses keep going up. Many landmark companies like Toys'r'Us get taken over by hedge funds that ruin companies by gutting them for a quick buck and leave the husks behind.

Too many CEOs are grossly over-compensated. Many are actively destroying value instead of creating it. There is no way in hell that Bezos and Musk worked so hard personally as to be worth over a hundred billions. IMO, there is no contribution to humanity by a single person that can possibly justify being worth a billion dollars.
Toys R Us failed the same reason JC Pennys and Sears failed. Bad leadership. In Toys R Us case, they over expanded in an effort to stay ahead of Amazon which they viewed as a threat. As a result they went massively in debt and couldn't sustain that debt load.

Good CEO's can make a company. Bad CEO's can break a company. And I can list several that have turned around companies. That includes Lisa Su, or Lee Iacocca. They are constantly traveling, often neglecting family, and work more than 40 hours a week every week. They have to identify problems, create plans, hedge against contingency predicted and not. They need to be able to analyze the competition. They finally need to build a team they have to hand pick to delegate his directives by an effective means. (IE: We are failing in the North West because it cost too much to ship our product there. We need a plant in the north west. I need a team I hand pick to oversee that because that isn't something I can do on my own.)

Sure you can say Elon isn't worth his pay. But you weren't sleeping in the factory staying there solid for multiple days at a time to solve issues. You didn't invent a system that allows rocket boosters to be reused at a fraction of the cost of more expensive gov't programs. Nor did you put up an internet system that allows broadband everywhere where the gov't failed to do so through incentives to mega corps. You can say Woz and Jobs weren't worth it either. (Jobs was a bastard but a genius of marketing) But where would the companies be today without them?

I did a pay analysis of the highest paid member of the Walmart board. If you took every bit of her pay and bonuses and divided it out evenly to every employee, assuming a 30 hour week, it would amount to a whopping 5 cents more per hour.

But this is neither here nor there and off topic.
 
Last edited:

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
Sure you can say Elon isn't worth his pay. But you weren't sleeping in the factory staying there solid for multiple days at a time to solve issues. You didn't invent a system that allows rocket boosters to be reused at a fraction of the cost of more expensive gov't programs. Nor did you put up an internet system that allows broadband everywhere where the gov't failed to do so through incentives to mega corps.
Elon didn't invent much if any of that, the thousands of scientists and engineers along with supporting staff to actually build the things hired by department managers at his companies did most of the real innovation work. Elon's main contribution is setting aspirational goals and spinning countless failures as successfully discovering ways that don't work.
 
Reactions: JamesJones44
Elon didn't invent much if any of that, the thousands of scientists and engineers along with supporting staff to actually build the things hired by department managers at his companies did most of the real innovation work. Elon's main contribution is setting aspirational goals and spinning countless failures as successfully discovering ways that don't work.
Maybe. Maybe not. But it's his strength of leadership, planning, and delegation of authority (by putting together good teams) that got him there. The free enterprise model was certainly more effective at building cost effective solutions compared to any gov't contracts from the likes of Lockhead/Boeing/Ford/GM/Toyota/Comcast.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
The free enterprise model was certainly more effective at building cost effective solutions compared to any gov't contracts from the likes of Lockhead/Boeing/Ford/GM/Toyota/Comcast.
A decently run government program is cheaper than private industry since there are no profit margins involved. That is how most civilized countries have medical costs per capita around half those of the USA yet still deliver better quality care to more of their population.
 
A decently run government program is cheaper than private industry since there are no profit margins involved. That is how most civilized countries have medical costs per capita around half those of the USA yet still deliver better quality care to more of their population.
If you look at the best rated hospitals in the world, the USA consistently appears at the top of that list. The includes places like Saint Judes, Johns Hopkins, Hershey Medical, and tons more.

Also, the reasons for expensive medical care here in the USA is several reasons:
  1. Malpractice insurance can be over 50% of the cost for doctors like OBGYN
  2. The $100 Aspirin at the hospital is the result of cost shifting. It's to offset those who don't have insurance. Hospitals have to swallow this cost. MOST hospitals are non-profit.
  3. A lack of qualified medical staff (therapist/nurses) causing prices to pay to shift upwards compared to other countries.
  4. We in the USA are financing medicine for the rest of the world. You may find this hard to swallow, but I personally have inside experience and knowledge how EXPENSIVE it is to create a new drug that can be patented. I know at my old job, one of our main clients was pharmaceutical companies. Our equipment was NOT cheap. And I walked in labs where there were dozens or even hundreds of these specialized machines looking and testing for new drugs. Organic chemistry is a bit of a @#$#@ as a protein fold can be unpredictable and random. (Combinatoric chemsitry brute force research method) Because countries like Canada said we won't pay more than $5 for this pill. The mfg company goes "Okay we'll we need to be able to pay for all this research equipment for new drugs. So we'll shift that cost off to the USA" That said if there were no price limits in other countries, it doesn't mean our prices will come down much. It's one of those unknowns. It's also one of the reasons Universities are also so expensive. When universities buy equipment there are unique price schedules for educational institutions. Why? Because the people selling the goods/equipment know the cost will be shifted onto the kids.
Gov't contracts are by far the most inefficient of all programs because there is little to no accountability. For example the Heads up helmet for the JSF is MASSIVELY over budget. Each helmet cost a fortune with massive delays and cost overruns. That is an uncontested gov't contract. If you work for the Federal gov't you have to MASSIVELY f up to get fired. Thus there is no accountability. My best friend's ex wife took years of unacceptable performance at her gov't job as a secretary before they could get rid of her.

SpaceX created a space delivery system that is far far cheaper than anything else Lockheed/ULA/Boeing have managed to create with gov't incentives. That is why NASA opened up the process to free competition without gov't contracts. The most efficient program won funding, thus putting the onus on businesses to be efficient. The same for Virgin Galatic.

That said, I do believe in the evils of monopolies. But big business and big paychecks aren't necessarily bad provided that power is NOT abused. (IE: Facebook/Comcast/Google/Microsoft)

If you wonder how I know so much, my wife being an OT, was active in reform at the gov't level to reduce fraud and the cost of health care through legislation. I was helping her with this research. My specialty is really computer programs related to engineering. But I have degrees in astrospace and computer science. And I follow what happens at NASA carefully as I used to work there (Goddard Space Flight). This is before my work creating tools for scientific instrumentation. These days I mainly do engineering raters on thermodynamic systems.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY