Sorry, I expressed myself wrongly. What I wanted to tell is that If you have a lot of bitcoins or computing power, you can influence the network significantly. There are a couple of influencers and they can basically do whatever they want to maximize their profits, and that is what the world already has and don't need anymore.
I noticed you editied your comment to remove "Proof of Stake". How does owning a lot of bitcoins "influence" the "network"? I can only assume you're talking about the technical aspect of the bitcoin blockchain and to the trading for profit part of it? no one if forced to "trade" bitcoin. With regards to minining pool centralization, are you for example, reffering to the chances of transaction mutability because of a 51% attack? what is the problem with a mining pool getting more rewards for making the network more secure? I would like you to be a little more detailed if possible rather than posting these comments.
By owning a lot of bitcoins you can influence the price of bitcoins and proof of stake rewards you proportionaly more. My concern was about plutocratic centralization and not a technical one, the effects can be the same though which I wrote, but edited it to prevent further misunderstandings. A monetary centralization can also lead to a 51% attack, imagine Satoshi selling a significant part of his stake, with one transaction he could drive a lot of miners out of business and buy up their infrastructure for cheap.
I get your point, your scenario is in a world where fiat is still king and bitcoin is a mere traded commodity. in your scenario, do you envision that miners will instantly stop mining the second that satoshi's address shows sign of movement that indicates liquidation? You really need to be more detailed rather than making brief open ended comments. There are a lot of people reading.
It was an example, there are a lot of people who can dump all their bitcoins at once and make bitcoin crash to a point when power costs will exceed the worth of the mined bitcoins. If someone offers you then a fraction of your investment for your infrastructure it could be seductice to cut your losses. I'm just pointing at a possible scenario. Of course its open ended, that is the nature of talking about theoretical future events, like your open ended comment about the mutability of a 51% attack and this whole article ;)
Sorry, I expressed myself wrongly. What I wanted to tell is that If you have a lot of bitcoins or computing power, you can influence the network significantly. There are a couple of influencers and they can basically do whatever they want to maximize their profits, and that is what the world already has and don't need anymore.
I noticed you editied your comment to remove "Proof of Stake". How does owning a lot of bitcoins "influence" the "network"? I can only assume you're talking about the technical aspect of the bitcoin blockchain and to the trading for profit part of it? no one if forced to "trade" bitcoin. With regards to minining pool centralization, are you for example, reffering to the chances of transaction mutability because of a 51% attack? what is the problem with a mining pool getting more rewards for making the network more secure? I would like you to be a little more detailed if possible rather than posting these comments.
By owning a lot of bitcoins you can influence the price of bitcoins and proof of stake rewards you proportionaly more. My concern was about plutocratic centralization and not a technical one, the effects can be the same though which I wrote, but edited it to prevent further misunderstandings. A monetary centralization can also lead to a 51% attack, imagine Satoshi selling a significant part of his stake, with one transaction he could drive a lot of miners out of business and buy up their infrastructure for cheap.
I get your point, your scenario is in a world where fiat is still king and bitcoin is a mere traded commodity. in your scenario, do you envision that miners will instantly stop mining the second that satoshi's address shows sign of movement that indicates liquidation? You really need to be more detailed rather than making brief open ended comments. There are a lot of people reading.
It was an example, there are a lot of people who can dump all their bitcoins at once and make bitcoin crash to a point when power costs will exceed the worth of the mined bitcoins. If someone offers you then a fraction of your investment for your infrastructure it could be seductice to cut your losses. I'm just pointing at a possible scenario. Of course its open ended, that is the nature of talking about theoretical future events, like your open ended comment about the mutability of a 51% attack and this whole article ;)