Quote from: kpitti on June 06, 2016, 01:57:02 PM

I try to figure out what you want to express. If I undrestand well, then you proposing dramatic change and rather proposing new cryptocurrency. I undrestand that centralization can be a problem, but Bitcoin is stable long term thanks to definition which is kept. This is how Bitcoin is build - thanks Miners.

What I want to express is that bitcoin isn't designed to be decentralized. It was foreseen that centralization was inevitable and the reason that it will centralize is because it has miners. It's a bit like Nazcar racing. Sure anyone can take part but it's dominated by specialist teams with huge amounts of resources and they will laugh at you when you enter your Chevrolet Impala.

There are 3 components of the bitcoin network (although Users and Full Nodes are not really different from a protocol perspective).

The Miners
Full nodes
Users.

Miners can do all three, if they so desire, at no real extra cost because for a User you only need a no-cost, open source client. For a Full node you only need 64GB of storage (a few dollars) but mining is the only one that can make coins and police the protocol.

To make money in mining, you now need 10s of thousands of dollars of specialist hardware, industrial levels of electricity and a lot of ventilated space. These things all get cheaper with centralization and the double whammy is centralization increases your probability of getting the next block first.

The end result is that miners will utilize economies of scale and be bought out, forced out and assimilated until there is a cartel of data centers containing full nodes and mining rigs, while everyone else has a client paying whatever fees the cartels dictate. Sound familiar?

The only way to prevent this is to remove miners as a group so there is no miner, full node or users - just users. And mining is a by-product of using the system. More users, more bitcoin mining occurs.That's not bitcoin, though.