Quote from: Cuber Krypton on July 06, 2017, 02:51:37 AM

Quote from: deisik on July 05, 2017, 07:10:47 PM

Quote from: Cuber Krypton on July 05, 2017, 08:58:34 AM

"While some people can buy all the ASICS in the world and others can't Bitcoin will be centralized".

This idea of decentralization is getting close to resembling communism.

If ever Bitcoin's efficiency gets pegged to the least efficient participant in order not to leave him behind, he will just be holding it back. Welcome to the Free Market. Please don't turn Bitcoin into Welfare State

I severely disagree with this approach

Basically, you are extending the idea of communism (universal equality) to spheres where it is not applicable and then proceeding to conclude that this is not good just because communism itself was a bad idea. The falseness of such approach is very easy to show. You might know that one of the money qualities (which any money token should possess by definition to be called money) is fungibility, i.e. an interchangeability of one money token (let's say, 1 bitcoin) with all other such money tokens. In other words, all money tokens are born equal. But this is an example of most intrepid communism out there (according to your reasoning), so why should we turn the money tokens into a "Welfare State"? This is the same with miners, their mission is purely utilitarian, and so anything which helps fulfill it should be considered as good. Therefore if making all miners equal contributes to this mission, it should get done. Miners are there not to earn profits, they are to confirm transactions. And if earning profits gets in the way of their job (as it does nowadays), the system should be revamped to make it actually serve its purpose

I don't totally follow your reasoning.

Anyhow, all tokens are created equal. This is not communism.

All effort is not created equal. Efficient effort is rewarded vs inefficient one. Communism equalizes it forcefully. It incentivizes you to spend the least effort possible to get the same rewards.

Everything is utilitarian, otherwise it would have no use or value. But everything costs resources. That is why if you need this work, it needs to be rewarded, if you don't, it needs to be punished.

Because I believe that utility and Hashrate are the real non speculative value behind Bitcoin, I do not wish that a subsidy be created to reward the effort of less efficient miners. This is like saying everyone should be able to run an electricity company and that everyone was by Law entitled to profit from it. What incentive is there for a better Utility?

You don't get it, absolutely

First, I'm not saying that all coins created equal is communism. This was only to show you how false your approach is. Further, you don't understand what the word utilitarian means in this context. In the given context it means serving for achieving particular end, so if something doesn't help in reaching it (or even gets in the way), it is either non-utilitarian or even anti-utilitarian (for this specific purpose). This is not about free market versus communism dichotomy at all. It is about whether something is utilitarian or more (less) utilitarian for a given purpose. Miners as such play only utilitarian function (whether you like it or not), that of confirming transactions (and generating new coins). The whole thing is certainly not about them earning profits, it is not the purpose of mining. Beyond that purpose they are useless. If you proceed with this understanding, you will likely see my point