- the system remains open such that if I feel really really strongly about it, that I can run a node and mine too
You wouldn't have enough hashrate to have any impact against a network with only 10 miners. Duh.
You're missing the game theory behind what keeps bitcoin secure, which is probably why you're so convinced that it will fail. For example, you said a new entrant wouldn't have enough hashrate to compete. However, if it requires a lot of hash rate for that new entrant to compete, then that means the system is very likely
not centralized.
Duh. Exactly that was _my_ point if you argue there will be only 10 miners.
I am not going to waste my entire day as you drag me into more nonsense debate.
I said I
didn't expect there to ever be only 10 miners! I was pointing out, though, that we probably don't need as many nodes/miners as many people think we need. I then gave the very extreme example of 10 miners, spread out in different legal jurisdictions and run by people with different ideologies, and stated that such a network could still be "decentralized."
The reason is that if the miners formed a cartel (and bitcoin became centralized), then they would all lower their hashrates to earn a greater profit.
Not necessarily. You always assume Nash equilibrium and are myopic about out-of-band incentives, such as the incentive to apply censorship (KYC compliance) and other payoffs that can come from that.
Fine. Maybe they earn a profit or perks some other way and not directly by reducing their hashrate. It doesn't matter. The point is they're getting above-market-value for the work they're doing. If the network is free to join, then others who are not in the cartel will want to join in order to "eat their lunch."
Again, I believe bitcoin will remain decentralized if it remains possible for participants to freely join the network and mine (i.e., it remains a dynamic-membership multi-party signature (DMMS) consensus scheme).