 |
January 09, 2014, 07:25:11 PM |
|
Maybe you (or anyone here) can clarify something for me.
I assume you're referring to the discussion on the 51% attack. I was under the impression that even if a pool had the *capability* to control 51% of the network, everyone on that pool would need to hop on board with the mutiny. Is that premise completely wrong? Can the pool owner secretly do something without the knowledge or consent of the pool members, once the pool has that much influence? If yes, then I can see why this would be a threat.
If the assumption is that everyone on the pool has to suddenly become "evil" and want to take down bitcoin for their own miniscule financial gain, then i think the entire 51% threat thing is total nonsense, for obvious reasons. If the assumption is that the pool owner (or any individual member of the pool) can begin doing evil ... then can someone explain to me why we don't just ban pools? I realize everyone wants that "extra little nudge" in profits ... but if an element of centralization is going to be a major element of the first decentralized financial network, then we have a major weakness in the chain. Anyone who has studied decentralized networks knows that it is the *centralized* element (if there is any) which ultimately could destroy the network. As long as every element remains decentralized, its impervious.
Sorry if that causes an uproar, but every rule you adhere to every day of your life is in place because of the bad apples that ruin things for the group. Otherwise you'd be able to talk on your phone while driving. Its the dummies who can't do two things at once that get in accidents and cause laws to be put in place which inconvenience the rest of us. Thats how life is. I think the safety of the Bitcoin network is more important than demanding the existence of pools, no?
-BB-
|
