Quote
I explained how in that post; it is nothing new or complicated, it has happened a couple of times already, and is often proposed (incorrectly) as a defense of last resort against an "evil" mining majority.
The kid gets a copy of the software, makes some cosmetic change that clearly distinguishes messages of his clone from those of the original version after a certain block N, and lowers the difficulty by fiat in the clone after that block so that he can start mining on his laptop. After that block, presto, every bitcoin in existence gets a clone in the kid's chain, that can be accessed with the same keys and moved (spent, sold, etc.) independently of the original bitcoin.
Whether bitcoiners will be aware of the existence of those "kidcoins", and will choose to use and/or mine them, is only a marketing problem, not a technical one...
The kid gets a copy of the software, makes some cosmetic change that clearly distinguishes messages of his clone from those of the original version after a certain block N, and lowers the difficulty by fiat in the clone after that block so that he can start mining on his laptop. After that block, presto, every bitcoin in existence gets a clone in the kid's chain, that can be accessed with the same keys and moved (spent, sold, etc.) independently of the original bitcoin.
Whether bitcoiners will be aware of the existence of those "kidcoins", and will choose to use and/or mine them, is only a marketing problem, not a technical one...
you explained how to make a bitcoin clone with a snapshot of the bitcoin blockchain.
there exist already several of these projects and as i know they all failed.
just increasing number of bitcoins wont be enough to replace bitcoin - it has to be something fundamental.
Quote
Indeed, and those historical examples are a strong argument for centralization of mining being inevitable. But while centralization is bad in general, it is a fundamental problem for bitcoin, because "absence of a trusted third party or central controlling authority" was supposed to be the goal of the project. As bitcoin gurus themselves concede, a mining company or cartel who has a comfortable majority of the hashpower can control the system, e.g. by starving miners who are not part of the cartel, freezing any account that the cartel feels like freezing, etc.. Right now, one must trust that the 4-5 largest miners will not use their power for "bad things"...
The security of the bitcoin system is supposed t come not just from the technical features of the protocol, but mainly from the incentives that are assumed to convince the majority of the players to cooperate and protect it, rather than sabotage it. That assumption is far from certain if a handful of companies has the majority of the hashpower.
The security of the bitcoin system is supposed t come not just from the technical features of the protocol, but mainly from the incentives that are assumed to convince the majority of the players to cooperate and protect it, rather than sabotage it. That assumption is far from certain if a handful of companies has the majority of the hashpower.
what do you think a centralized bitcoin is? digital fiat money - nothing else.
this is the reason why bitcoin participants will try their hardest to make it not happen (centralization).
bitcoin would just lose all meaning and value and people would just walk away or to bitcoin x