[vonkow]

On paper that sounds great, but 51% computing power rapidly becomes a "central/political/technical institution" in the real world.

[meanduck]

There is no scenario where (eg) bitcoin's 51% computing power goes to single institution. If one govt jumps in so will the others. In fact you can jump too and vote with your computing power. And note this is not possible in fiat currencies.

[Animats]

The top three mining pools, all in China, have well over 50% of the hash rate.[1]

[1] https://blockchain.info/pools

[meanduck]

And how are they single institution ? And if you dont like the distribution you can be a miner as it is required by cryptocurrency. Bitcoin is still being adopted. We should see more fair distribution or see another better cryptocurrency. Anycase cryptocurrency is the future global currency.

[davidgerard]

That sounds like a strong statement about the ownership of the four or five entities that control most Bitcoin mining. You're quite sure they don't have a great deal of commonality? Remember that this is a completely unregulated market.

[the_duke]

In addition to the other comments, why would you start investing computing power (and therefore money) in a 'currency' that is centrally controleld. Just to 'take away said control'? There's no motivation for that.

[meanduck]

To make it more decenteralised. Cryptocurrency without enough participents actively voting with their computational power is not a cryptocurrency and will have none of the improvements over fiat currency.

Bitcoin might have 51% dishonest problem but it can be made honest again by increasing total computation. Whether 51% are honest or not is function of total computation power [TCP]. Probablity of 51% being honest goes to 1 as TCP goes to infinity.

[the_duke]

Yes, I understood your reasoning.

My point was, only very few people are about something like this.

[meanduck]

EDIT: OK lets say some 51% is dishonest. You have the option to become miner and reduce their power/influence share.

51% being honest is fundamental assumption of a cryptocurrency [1]. The assumption gets stronger as total computation power increases.

[1] Its necessery but not sufficient condition to make the whole state dishonest. You would need to have >50% computation work done.

[CoryG89]

> The assumption gets stronger as total computation power increases.

This assumes that the increases in computing power were not added via a mining pool, in which case the additional computing power is making things worse.

This is one reason that many view mining pools as one of the worst failures of bitcoin / other blockchains.

[meanduck]

Mining pool or single gpu its irrelevent. As long as honest people can get more computational power than dishonest ones, cryptocurrency is decentralised and 51%-honest.

[CoryG89]

Honest centralization is still centralization. You may be assuming that everyone participating in a mining pool will get an independent vote. From my understanding, this is usually not the case. If a small number of mining pools control more than 50℅ of the capacity then just a few people can decide these types of matters, honestly or dishonestly. That's centralization.

It's not total centralization, but it's a far cry from the level of decentralization that would be possible if mining pools did not exist.

[meanduck]

Cryptocurrency does not mean it has perfect dicentralised distribution. It only means that its (much) better than fiat currency's.