Quote from: Zarathustra on March 16, 2016, 12:31:45 PM

Quote from: Lauda on March 16, 2016, 12:10:28 PM

Here an nice article that does some analysis in regards to this problem: A date with Sybil.

Quote from: exstasie on March 16, 2016, 03:57:18 AM

Classic nodes went up 1300-1400 in a day. You saying 1300-1400 people brought nodes online all at once? Cheesy

Not saying it's impossible, but pretty unlikely. There is someone now boasting on reddit about owning 800 nodes in the cloud, paid through May.

All their nodes are controller by less than 300 people.

70% of hash power is controlled by 3 Chinese people whith whom Blockstream/Core signs backroom deals.

To be fair, pool admins will lose control of hash power quickly if they go against their miners' interests. Just look at Ghash.io.

Regarding "backroom deals" ( Roll Eyes

), Eric at HaoBTC indicated that Jeff Garzik similarly met with Chinese miners to facilitate support of Classic. After meeting with him they decided against it.

Quote from: eric@haobtc on January 29, 2016, 03:03:22 PM

Many Chinese Bitcoiners - not only miners, but also exchanges and wallet services, originally supported Classic for its support of 2MB block size, but after meeting Jeff Garzik in Beijing, many backtracked because they didn't believe that the team behind is capable or there is a roadmap.

Quote from: Zarathustra on March 16, 2016, 12:44:21 PM

The logic of the Blockstream/Core supporters: a concentration at 300 people is a problem - a concentration at 3 people is not.

Please tell us about your solution to mining centralization that has somehow been lost on the entire community.

Oh, and on the subject of mining centralization: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_devlist/comments/3bsvm9/mining_centralization_pressure_from_nonuniform/