Quote from: ChuckOne on June 15, 2014, 02:42:49 PM

Quote from: S4VV4S on June 15, 2014, 02:40:49 PM

Quote from: ChuckOne on June 15, 2014, 02:37:43 PM

Quote from: S4VV4S on June 15, 2014, 02:24:22 PM

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on June 15, 2014, 02:15:33 PM

The question should be: is bitcoin decentralized enough? The fact is when a new block is mined, that miner or pool has limited control over what transactions get included in that block and subsequent blocks they mine. Once another miner or pool mines another block, then the previous miner no longer has that limited control. Also, once a block is mined, it is up to the rest of the network to agree to that broadcast block as the longest chain. If other nodes on the network find a major problem with a block, then they will likely not accept that as the longest chain. According to this site: https://getaddr.bitnodes.io, bitcoin has 7859 nodes in 99 countries. Nearly all have to agree on the longest chain. I would call that decentralized enough.

tldr; Each new block mined is subject to limited attack by the miner who mined it and subsequent blocks that same miner is able to mine. However, with 7859 nodes in 99 countries, most of whom have to agree on the longest chain, bitcoin is decentralized enough.

So if I was to setup 8000 nodes would I then be able to disrupt things?

Yeah. Clearly not.

Why not?

Because your hashrate counts.

Sorry, you lost me.
Are you saying that the nodes with the most hashrate count more?