Of course it would be better.

You guys are just idiots that will watch your great great grandchildren kill eachother  

Enjoy your temporal greed and btw, you bald because of greed. I have a full lion mane and always will because I do not have my head up my a$$.

The mark of the beast is on the forehead, that is why you bald there. Beast Coin out.

So you rather have 1 guy or a couple guys create all the supply rather everybody at the same rate, seems like you have a serious case of entitled head a$$.

Infact my idea would stop the double spend or someone controlling 50% of the network completely, and if you really think about long long term, at the end, 1 guy will win with the current system.

Don’t know if your here to learn or hear other people’s views because, it’s not looking like your open to any of that by your trying so hard to be abusive. If that’s your purpose, I don’t see why you should leave the thread open for discussion.
There is an icon just at the left bottom of your screen that allows you to lock the topic if that pleases you. It would give you a window of opportunity to be the only responder to this topic as you wish while, the rest of us could read on if that works for you.

There is no perfect system anywhere and Bitcoin is the closest thing we have to a "fully" decentralized money. And no, we can't get everyone to have the same hash rate. How do we do that and continue to ensure every newly borns will get their own hash rate. Everything you just said sounds simple on paper.

When it comes to designing decentralized networks you'd start to appreciate all we have with Bitcoin even though it's not perfect.

There is no perfection.

Even at that, it would be super hard to coordinate and reach consensus. It's even hard to reach consensus on these smaller chains not to talk of Bitcoin where we need everything to move rapidly. Such a requirement won't work.

Most people are not even cut out for that kind of responsibilities and only want to be users.

Do you realize that if people have that hashrate then it would be possible to attack the network?. One more thing, how would a person have that kind of hashrate possible?. If that's what you want then it's no longer a decentralized but a democratic system which people have the ability to vote on the network. It defeats the purpose that Satoshi Nakamoto wanted. If someone wants to mine is that all they have to do is to have money and buy mining rig and wait until it mined a block for a reward. You are clearly not open for discussion because you are being aggressive to others and even calling their point bullshit.

I feel your passion about fairness. Truly. But "one hashrate for all" is a utopian pitch. Competition for incentives is inevitable among miners. That is the essence. It maintains the network under security. You lose that security dynamic if you drive equal mining capability. Those who read this should understand that striving "fair" at all costs might destroy the very thing you are attempting to preserve.

About the "rich get richer" gripe: it's accurate. Wealth concentration is a global problem, and Bitcoin just exposes it. It does not create inequality. Indeed, early adopters have a great advantage, but at least the rules are clear-cut: no hidden money printer, no behind-closed-doors deals. Future generations of children will not be mining much, but they will be utilizing digital assets, the framework, the infrastructures that governments cannot simply seize or devaluate at will

And the thing about the heart. The wallet is schooling? Sure, they are inventive. But they transform Bitcoin into something it is not - something with gatekeeping, identity checks, central monitoring. That kills the trustless nature. People must balance the advantages against the losses. Sure, democracy is good; nevertheless, imposed voting rights in a protocol seem dubious. It's not decentralized at all

Big players follow the same code even if they can accumulate enormous piles. They cannot devalue your holdings over night or freeze your money. That is beautiful. That holds the power. That represents Bitcoin.

it would be more fair, sure but bitcoin will be weaker i mean if this is to be done nothing will really change aside from bitcoin being more vulnerable miners are incentivized based on how much computational power they can contribute therefore helping the network be more secure i know this is not ideal for those who can't contribute much but for the greater good this is what is the best situation

besides for this to happen, people are going to have to agree and trust one another that they will only use a specific amount of hashrate when mining and stick with what was agreed upon but people would be doubtful and may just dont follow the agreed upon system

at a hashrate of just 1difficulty (CPU speed)

1 hour of CPU would be 100watt which at a base cost of $0.04/kwh would be $0.004 per hour which, when bitcoin was new with 50btc per blockx6 blocks an hour
that $0.004 would be the underlying security cost of
$0.00001333 per btc in the early years (2009-2012)
$0.00002666 per btc in the mid years (2012-2016)
$0.00005333 per btc in the mid years (2016-2020)
$0.00010666 per btc in the recent years (2020-2024)

this would mean the economics would not be profitable for millions of people to get involved and instead it would just be a few dozen individuals fighting for scraps

also with such low capability of difficulty, it wouldnt be too hard for someone to find a work around forcing the difficulty to need to change to stay honest. and prevent one entity running multiple computer/nodes alone to solve every block

eventually we would end up with the same system we have now..

oh wait, we already did all this in 2009+

..
it is sad when people who dont know better want to break/reset a system hoping their silly idea will get them a greedy win of several bitcoin without effort.. but they dont really think long and hard about their idea's failures and flaws over all.. the only thing they think of is that they cant compete today with just solomining via cpu when everyone else is ASIC mining. they think the world owes them a reset to CPU so they can get a lucky win without effort... selfishly thinking they can get rich promoting such a silly concept

i know alot of penny pinching people who dont want to/cant be bothered to invest in bitcoin via markets or mining, they just want break a system and get a free handout by hoping someone will reset bitcoin to basics so they can win a whole block, and dreaming that winning a block will make them rich for nothing..
.. but they dont realise the reset also resets the market. and the economics, thus their lucky win from running a computer for 10 minutes wont make them rich

funny part is the current system as is, is not a get rich quick scheme, its a break even to cover costs+ sensible profit over all(balancing the peaks and dips of hashrate, difficulty and competition)

however your idea to reset the security not only is a failed math test where you didnt calculate the economics of, but also would leave the network vulnerable
the only people who would present an idea to reset the system are the greedy that want to get 50btc for 10mins of no effort hoping one day it will make them a millionaire.. meaning you were the one hoping to get rich by being rewarded many btc for little effort