Quote from: JorgeStolfi on January 20, 2015, 06:50:36 AM

Quote from: NewLiberty on January 20, 2015, 06:09:29 AM

This is the opposite of what is happening.
It is because we are worried about it that it is not a problem.
Whenever centralization increases, the twitter storms and articles splash everywhere and miners react.

So bitcoin's future is protected by the power of twitter storms and coindesk articles? Mind if I am not impressed?

Seriously, I can't believe that a company would voluntarily shrink because some customers (who cannot choose their suppliers) complain about them being too big. I would expect it to merely disguise its size, by using two or more diferent names. Is anyone worried bout that?

Quote from: smooth on January 20, 2015, 06:13:16 AM

Quote from: JorgeStolfi on January 20, 2015, 05:56:06 AM

What is your point? The disaster did not happen until now, so the risk does not exist?

His point, and it is a good one, is that the available evidence points to a trend away from increasing centralization.

2012: 3 companies had more than 50%
2013: 2 companies has more than 50%
2014: 1 company (GHash.io) had more than 50%
2015: 4(?) companies have more than 50%

Well, sorry, I dont see a trend there.

Read up on mining pools please.
Then check your assumptions.
The threat isn't what you think it is, it is addressed in ways you aren't comprehending, and it is only a small part of the centralization problems.