Quote from: MoonShadow on March 16, 2013, 10:33:54 PM

Quote from: batcoin on March 16, 2013, 08:46:14 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on March 16, 2013, 12:31:42 AM

It's also more than a bit rediculous to assume that future users would be running a full node, and could be tricked into supporting such a change simply by turning on an auto update feature. First off, the vast majority of future bitcoin users, if bitcoin is ever truely succesful, will be running light clients or depending upon wallet service accounts; the full client will be the realtively rare animal. Probably as many or more full nodes as presently exist, but still realtively rare overall. Second, a group of end users, both stupid enough to trust their internal security with their money to a remotely controlled automated system AND wealthy enough to ignore the ongoing costs of running a full node would still amount to little, IMHO simply because there are now, and shall be, more than just the main reference client. So whatever percentage is deceived into supporting the change will still be opposed (by default) by those nodes that do not authorize or otherwise cannot participate in an auto update. Furthermore, the break wouldn't go unnoticed for very long, and a great many of the decieved users can and will revert.

This is where our thoughts diverge. I don't think it's ridiculous to think that future users will be running full nodes. To an extent, I hope they do. Even with ASICs supposedly coming out to beef up hashing power 25-fold or whatever amount it's going to be - the total network is and still will be puny compared to the sum of computational hardware found in average homes where Bitcoin is currently seeing the most interest. It would be a matter of chump change to a certain number of governments or individuals to totally wreak havoc with Bitcoin as it now stands.

Chump change? Is that so?

The bitcoin network is currently running at 460.28 PetaFLOPS according to bitcoinwatch.com. According to Wikipedia, the fastest supercomputer on Earth is Titan, A XK7 model by Cray and installed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. It has a benchmarked sustainable rating of 17.59 PetaFLOPS and an as-installed cost of $97 million. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOP500#Top_10_ranking) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(supercomputer)

So to match wits with the Bitcoin network right now would cost at least $2.5 Billion. And that presumes that the network doesn't grow before that monster is built!

Yes, that is so - even if the network grows beforehand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue
http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/current_spending

You linked an impressive computer, but it would be pretty stupid to try to build more of them to overwhelm Bitcoin when you could just use a few thousand, let's say 50,000 ASICs at at 25GH/s at $2000 a piece. (I use a higher price here to be generous to MoonShadow and a lower than average hash rate because governments don't tend to give much of a shit about value.) So we have a price tag of 100 million dollars to bring the network to 1.25 Exahash/s, which is roughly 33 times the size of today's ~38Thash/s. The Bitcoin ASIC industry is tiny at present with a relative handful of people involved. Do you think that TPTB would even bat an eyelash at spending 100 million (full retail price) to destabilize the Bitcoin network if it suited them? (As a side note, I think a small group of wealthy individuals would/could get involved too, but they would probably do it in a more economically feasible way.) I think Google would be a perfect example of a company already set up for such a venture. They have the capital and R&D to go into something like Bitcoin mining ASICs. And I think they could do it extremely quickly.

Another thing - FLOPS are a rough translation for hashes/s. The Bitcoin network technically runs at 0 FLOPS.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50720.msg605583#msg605583
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/2917/how-fast-is-the-bitcoin-mining-network
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99743.msg1091176#msg1091176

I am not trying to spread FUD, but simply bring these points to others' attention for consideration in this thread.

Quote from: MoonShadow on March 16, 2013, 10:33:54 PM

Quote

I think we need the individual users to have a full client running on their computers at home, even if they are doing something as minor as CPU/GPU mining or whatever it might come to be. I suspect that people will be able to just pop a small ASIC into one of their computer expansion slots in the future just to do their little part for the network even at a slight loss if it means adding resilience to the network. They can have their light clients running on their Huckleberry Pi-pads to do day to day transactions.

I don't doubt that this will be possible, but full clients won't be necessary for at-home reserve miners, they just need to join a mining pool. Pool miners don't need full clients now.

This still leaves a problem of centralization, does it not?

Quote from: MoonShadow on March 16, 2013, 10:33:54 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on March 16, 2013, 12:31:42 AM

The 21M limit is part of what makes Bitcoin what it is, if you don't like it or don't think it's going to work out, you can either support one of the alt-coins that suits your needs or start your own. Just don't call it Bitcoin.

Quote

Where did I say I didn't like it or that I thought it wouldn't work out? I thought I was just discussing some points where Bitcoin could have some potential problems. Shouldn't we be discussing such things?

I don't think you have any idea how often I am sucked into these kinds of re-occuring newbie conversations. Most of the old salts have long ago chosen to ignore such repetitive "problems". The long and short of it is, it's not a problem, you're not the first to think it is a problem, so if you insist on resolving said problem there are numerous alt-coins that should fit your sensabilities better than Bitcoin.

Actually, I don't really care how many newbie conversations you've had. I neither asked nor forced you to respond to what I had to say. It was your choice to respond. I also don't think I made the claim that I was the first to think of something as a potential problem. I was just responding to a thread I thought was interesting. Please don't ascribe comments to me that I never made.

Quote from: MoonShadow on March 17, 2013, 01:29:56 AM

Seriously, newbs; read a bit before talking. Should we increase the newbie surfing term before letting you guys out of the newbie section?

And aparerntly the post count into the thousands...

Come now... Really? This kind of response towards newbies having legitimate questions about Bitcoin really isn't going to help encourage people to get more involved in the project. I have been around these forums for awhile despite my low post count and late registration date. There is a lot of shit I don't understand on this site because I am not an expert in the given field. Once I feel I understand an idea, then I try to help out by putting it in my own words in the hopes of helping someone else out around here who may not understand some of the concepts on such a technical level.