Am I talking about taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor? No, I'm just saying that the poor must have a real opportunity to mine the cryptocurrency.
That's a nice idea, but it clashes with basic economics and the incentives underlying Bitcoin. The fundamental premise of proof-of-work mining is that miners engage in a costly and time-consuming process which can be easily verified. The whole point is that it's expensive for miners to produce POW but nearly free for users to verify.Take that model to its natural conclusion. Increased competition leads to lower margins and higher costs, as difficulty rises. This forces smaller, "poorer" miners who cannot scale up their operations out of the market.
Let thousands of computers buy and mine a lot of coins. But let the poor have the opportunity to mine at least what a single computer or smartphone that a poor person, or a poor family, can buy.
It's not up to us. It's a market mechanism. Miners are driving the hash rate up because buyers are bidding up the price of bitcoins. If demand for bitcoins keeps rising, so too will mining expenditures.
You wanted to say that it violates the incentives of Bitcoin? No!
You do not understand the reasons why Bitcoin was created. This is the philosophy of crypto-anarchists, not bankers and merchants.
The whitepaper explains why Bitcoin was created:
Quote
A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending. We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network.
Bitcoin was created to cut third parties (like banks) out of financial transactions. Miners are just a means to that end. Satoshi might have hoped for an ecosystem where mining was less concentrated, but Bitcoin's design doesn't lend itself to that.