Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 1,381 results by bytemaster
Re: CoinMarketCap.com - Market Cap Rankings of All Cryptocurrencies!
The supply of EOS is 1B, 900M are circulating within the next 335 days. The supply will not be changing so can be hard-coded.
204M are "liquid" now and an additional 2M are being made "liquid" every 23 hours. Based on Steem Power president the full 900M should be the basis because 900M will be entering the market within a timeframe relevant to todays pricing.
204M are "liquid" now and an additional 2M are being made "liquid" every 23 hours. Based on Steem Power president the full 900M should be the basis because 900M will be entering the market within a timeframe relevant to todays pricing.
Re: holy shit! EOS hardcore scam - renamed BitShares - You will NOT like this?!
I got this private message...
!!! WARNING: This user is a newbie. If you are expecting a message from a more veteran member, then this is an imposter !!!
hi bytemaster, I am a father from Italy with not a lot of money
I invest all I have in the EOS token distribution tbh
I hope many people hesitate to invest cause of my code diff post, but in the long term I am of course a strong supporter. This is how Bitcointalk works often times
If you can send me 1 ETH I can just delete my post / replace it with the fact that what I said is false.
But in any way, it won't hurt EOS because EOS is your magnus opus, right. Everyone will be able to see it later on.
my eth address is 0x9aADD5eCe976688Ad99cf956E53364Eb7a5FDF06
sorry and thanks
best greetz, pistacia
hi bytemaster, I am a father from Italy with not a lot of money
I invest all I have in the EOS token distribution tbh
I hope many people hesitate to invest cause of my code diff post, but in the long term I am of course a strong supporter. This is how Bitcointalk works often times
If you can send me 1 ETH I can just delete my post / replace it with the fact that what I said is false.
But in any way, it won't hurt EOS because EOS is your magnus opus, right. Everyone will be able to see it later on.
my eth address is 0x9aADD5eCe976688Ad99cf956E53364Eb7a5FDF06
sorry and thanks
best greetz, pistacia
Re: holy shit! EOS hardcore scam - renamed BitShares - You will NOT like this?!
The only SCAM here is the original poster who didn't bother to actually perform a DIFF on the codebase.
Even a cursory examination of the code will show you there is VERY LITTLE left of the original bitshares code.
Yes the file names and directory structure is similar, that is because the design pattern is similar.
Even a cursory examination of the code will show you there is VERY LITTLE left of the original bitshares code.
Yes the file names and directory structure is similar, that is because the design pattern is similar.
Re: [ANN] An Experimental Smart Contract Platform [Q4 Release]
This is not me even though it appears they attempted to subtly imply it might be me to the extent that multiple people contacted me, if this message is deleted we have strong evidence this is a scam.
I will post all EOS info on Steem (https://steemit.com/@dantheman) where edit history minimizes this kind of potential abuse.
We will not be doing a secret steem-like launch of EOS.
Do not look for future announcements by me from secret accounts. I will not repeat the Steem launch strategy.
Please report this thread to the moderators if this post is deleted.
I will post all EOS info on Steem (https://steemit.com/@dantheman) where edit history minimizes this kind of potential abuse.
We will not be doing a secret steem-like launch of EOS.
Do not look for future announcements by me from secret accounts. I will not repeat the Steem launch strategy.
Please report this thread to the moderators if this post is deleted.
Somewhat relevant: https://steemit.com/blockchain/@dantheman/a-better-approach-to-turing-complete-smart-contracts
The performance difference is impressive. And it also allows for zero-fee txs/contracts (I guess until someone finds a way to spam it).
The performance difference is impressive. And it also allows for zero-fee txs/contracts (I guess until someone finds a way to spam it).
That is not the correct solution because of course it gives the spammer an asymmetrical advantage. And the problem with sharding is not just that messages between shards are multi-threading (this can actually be solved by requiring messages to be queued to the next block), but rather that then both shards have to verify the entire history chain of those cross-chard "transactions", which defeats the performance improvement of shards. Vitalik probably proposes to have shard validators trust each other with forfeitable deposits, but that like PoS destroys Nash Equilibrium. As well as I explained my video, external business logic can conflate shards even if cross-shard messages are restricted, leading to chaos, discontent when a shard validator set has lied (for profit obviously), and a drop in the value of the token. Bruce Wanker will be laughing again.
I finally realized the solution to last sentence in the prior paragraph, which I alluded to in my prior comment. It suddenly just popped into my mind when I listened to myself.
Dan Larimer is rushing and making mistakes:
Quote
Steem, on the other hand, easily survived the flood attacks thrown at it without disrupting service and all without any transaction fees!
Were those bandwidth DDoS attacks filtered by perimeter nodes, or validation attacks absorbed by validating nodes?
Quote
The price of GAS would go up until it stunted the growth of all three applications.
Incorrect. If the price of GAS would increase due to higher demand but the lesser amount of GAS needed would still reflect the unchanged cost of validating a script at that higher price.
Quote
The native implementation would cause all the same outputs given the same inputs, except it wouldnt know how to calculate the GAS costs because it wasnt run on the EVM.
It could simply compute its own cost based on some counters. If it knows its optimized implementation is less costly than the EVM, then it doesn't harm (i.e. remains compliant) by keeping the GAS if it is depleted before the script completes. Others verifying the depletion case would run the EVM, as this wouldn't cost them more than running native version. For non-depleted scripts, validators run their most efficient native version.
Quote
Require a proof-of-work on each script
Unless this is more expensive in resources than the cost of validating the script, then the attacker has an asymmetric DoS advantage. So all you've done is shifted the cost of paying the fee to generating the equivalent proof-of-work.
And unless each script consumer has access to a premium ASIC, then the attacker still has an asymmetric advantage. And if you say the script consumer can farm out this ASIC, then you've shifted the DoS attack to the said farm.
Quote
Local Blacklist / White list scripts, accounts, and/or peers
That is effective for bandwidth DDoS, but Nash Equilibirium can be gamed by an open system w.r.t. to submitting data for validation.
I just stumbled across this critique and wanted to add a response:
1. Users attempted to flood the steem network with transactions, validating nodes included transactions at the specified limit.
2. There is a limited supply of computational power, thus people bid up the price they are willing to pay to transact and it results in increased profit margins due to the fixed (unchanged computational cost) of validating a script. Just like BTC fees rise now that blocks are full, the cost to transact on ETH will rise once the single-threaded performance limit is hit.
Your remaining points about POW on each script and Nash Equilb are completely missing the point by getting lost in the weeds.
An attacker can submit a transaction for validation that fails after the allowed time (say 2ms). The attacker generates the transaction but doesn't run it themselves, which gives them an advantage over the defender.
If the defender sets an arbitrary POW requirement on a per-connection basis, then they can force the attacker to perform a 2ms POW that is validated in 1 us before attempting to process the script. The attacker would have to redo their POW for each peer they want to broadcast to.
Long-lasting connections can build up "trust" and reduce POW requirements for nodes that demonstrate they do not relay invalid transactions. First violation of trust reverts back to POW.
Anyway, preventing SPAM is a trivial problem compared to attempting to scale ETH.
Quote
Account registered by another account requires 10x account creation fee worth of Steem Power before it can power down.
what does this mean?
rtfm. no, i wont.
It means you cannot create an account and then cashout. You must create an account and then use it to earn 10x the account creation fee. Account creation fee is 5 STEEM now and is constantly falling.
So you can either wait or earn.
Re: [ANN][STEEM]STEEMIT.COM THE REDDIT OF CRYPTOCURRENCY-BLOGGING IS THE NEW MINING
saw somewhere that the pow is already done?
You can still mine it and will be able to for ever.
I presume the mining is almost dead?
is there any POW block left atm, I am testing mining with new account and one i5 CPU
is there any POW block left atm, I am testing mining with new account and one i5 CPU
There is one POW block every 63 seconds on average for the life of the coin.
The comment about 19 witnesses also misunderstands how Steem consensus works.
Unlike BTS there is not a set number of witnesses. The top 19 are primary witnesses but everyone else who gets at least one vote is a timeshared backup witness (more votes means more time). In fact you can just vote yourself in as a timeshared witness. It absolutely makes sense to vote for people who aren't in the top 19 if you think they are good witnesses. One in particular who comes to mind is masteryoda, who seems capable and an all-around good guy (though I only know him briefly from online). He has my votes and IMO should get a few more votes, but that is not to disparage anyone else.
Unlike BTS there is not a set number of witnesses. The top 19 are primary witnesses but everyone else who gets at least one vote is a timeshared backup witness (more votes means more time). In fact you can just vote yourself in as a timeshared witness. It absolutely makes sense to vote for people who aren't in the top 19 if you think they are good witnesses. One in particular who comes to mind is masteryoda, who seems capable and an all-around good guy (though I only know him briefly from online). He has my votes and IMO should get a few more votes, but that is not to disparage anyone else.
Furthermore, the Steemit team has adopted a neutral position on witnesses and isn't voting.
The question of whether or not there were lies depends upon definitions. Understanding that people can and do have different definitions for the same word is the first step to resolving conflict.
Here is my perspective and thinking at the time we posted:
1. Steem is not a pre-mine because we did no mining before the code was public and anyone could participate
2. Steem is not an insta-mine because mining occurred at a fixed rate for a full month before VESTING kicked in, also mining continues for ever
3. Steem is not an IPO / ICO because we didn't sell anything before we delivered the goods
After we launched a new term was introduced 'ninja-mine' which I presume means "sneeky"... but we admitted at launch that that was our intention.
So all that people are left with is that "early miners" have the ability to "dump" and suppress the price. Guess what, miners have dumped much more than Steemit has sold. I myself have purchased a lot of steem.
Lastly, we designed the system from the beginning to encourage commitment and discourage dumping.
So it is relatively clear that the only people being deceptive and dishonest are the trolls who make accusations without knowing what they are talking about. The only people getting scammed are those who are scared away by the trolls. We have asked for nothing and given much. The market will sort out whether or not Steem has value.
Here is my perspective and thinking at the time we posted:
1. Steem is not a pre-mine because we did no mining before the code was public and anyone could participate
2. Steem is not an insta-mine because mining occurred at a fixed rate for a full month before VESTING kicked in, also mining continues for ever
3. Steem is not an IPO / ICO because we didn't sell anything before we delivered the goods
After we launched a new term was introduced 'ninja-mine' which I presume means "sneeky"... but we admitted at launch that that was our intention.
So all that people are left with is that "early miners" have the ability to "dump" and suppress the price. Guess what, miners have dumped much more than Steemit has sold. I myself have purchased a lot of steem.
Lastly, we designed the system from the beginning to encourage commitment and discourage dumping.
So it is relatively clear that the only people being deceptive and dishonest are the trolls who make accusations without knowing what they are talking about. The only people getting scammed are those who are scared away by the trolls. We have asked for nothing and given much. The market will sort out whether or not Steem has value.
Do you allow to reblog posts from another blog?
is the pay only according to how a post is voted?
I can blog, but I wonder if this would waste my time?
is the pay only according to how a post is voted?
I can blog, but I wonder if this would waste my time?
The blockchain determine everything by voting. The more consensus there is around your post the more you make.
If you "reblog" posts from another blog then it depends on many factors to see how voters turn out.
i don't agree with the topic of the previous thread" [ANN][STEEM][POW] - NO IPO | NO PREMINE | NO INSTAMINE (relaunch) "
the steem pow phase was instamined like nothing i ever saw in crypto .. im not being hateful or anything its the truth ... also the price the steem should decrease with time as the supply increase and the value of vests increase i think vests will be able to move around soon or be traded
the steem pow phase was instamined like nothing i ever saw in crypto .. im not being hateful or anything its the truth ... also the price the steem should decrease with time as the supply increase and the value of vests increase i think vests will be able to move around soon or be traded
The only thing with respect to moving VESTS that has even been discussed is the ability to "merge" accounts, but not divide and transfer. There are complex edge cases that this exposes so it isn't a high priority at the moment.
Welcome to Steemit, decentralized and incentivized social media.
Steemit is a new social media platform built on the Steem blockchain where the community rewards individuals for their posts, comments and votes, co-founded by Ned Scott, CEO, and Daniel Larimer, CTO of Steemit and founder of Bitshares.
Underneath the hood of Steemit.com there is a tradeable cryptocurrency token, called Steem, and it's performing well on the US-based exchange, bittrex.com, and blockchain-based exchange openledger.info. With Steemit.com, posts, comments and votes are immutable. Attribution is a given. Accreditation is not taken for granted. And community appreciation is an actual reward.
We were recently in the press. Here is an article from CoinReport: https://coinreport.net/conversation-ned-scott-ceo-steemit/. And another from Coin Desk: http://www.coindesk.com/facebook-user-controlled-social-media-blockchain/
There are large rewards being distributed for Steemit's first and largest distribution on July 4th. See the leaderboard at https://steemit.com/trending. There are Sub-Steems for talking about cryptocurrency and Bitcoin, as well as many other topics.
Steem rewards long term holders .. By Purchasing Steem and "Powering Up" the Steem, the holder earns more Steem and voting power to use on Steemit.com Voting power allows the user to earn more Steem.
Sign up on steemit.com today to have your account funded with 10 Steem, and lets be part of the movement for a better online community.
Best regards,
Ned, "steem" CEO of Steemit, https://www.linkedin.com/in/nedscott
Dan, "Bytemaster", CTO of Steemit, founder of Bitshares, https://www.linkedin.com/in/daniel-larimer-0a367089
Application: https://steemit.com
Cryptocurrency & Blockchain Info: https://steem.io
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZmpCAqD7hs
Bitcointalk Steem announcement: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1410943.220
Trending Posts: https://steemit.com/trending
Slack auto-inviter: http://steem.herokuapp.com
Articles
http://www.coindesk.com/facebook-user-controlled-social-media-blockchain/
https://coinreport.net/conversation-ned-scott-ceo-steemit/
http://cointelegraph.com/news/steemit-new-social-media-platform-which-pays-you-to-post
https://coinreport.net/steemit-rewards-social-media-content-creators-cryptocurrency/
http://www.the-blockchain.com/2016/05/03/new-blockchain-social-media-platform-steemit-pays-post-vote-online/
http://www.coindesk.com/facebook-user-controlled-social-media-blockchain/
https://coinreport.net/conversation-ned-scott-ceo-steemit/
http://cointelegraph.com/news/steemit-new-social-media-platform-which-pays-you-to-post
https://coinreport.net/steemit-rewards-social-media-content-creators-cryptocurrency/
http://www.the-blockchain.com/2016/05/03/new-blockchain-social-media-platform-steemit-pays-post-vote-online/
Re: CoinMarketCap.com - Market Cap Rankings of All Cryptocurrencies!
The debate about whether Vesting STEEM or locked up HODL should be included in the market cap should be separated from the debate on whether "founders" coins should be counted. Conflating these two concepts can seriously misrepresent things.
Suppose that the vesting period was just 1 week? Would that change the opinion on whether or not they should be counted? Suppose it was 1 month? At what point in time do vesting tokens get "taken out of supply"?
1% of all STEEM could be on the market within 7 days.
5% of all STEEM could be on the market within a month.
50% of all STEEM could be on the market this year.
100% of all STEEM is available for BULK trades today.
Clearly vesting for 1 hour or even 20 hours counts in the supply of Bitcoin (time until new coins are transferrable).
So now we are left with drawing some kind of arbitrary line in the sand. It comes down to a "net present value" calculation.
One thing is certain, a $285K market cap and ranking at over 100 on CMC is grossly out of proportion with actual interest and capital investment in the Steem blockchain.
I am all for having some kind of sanity check on whether or not a platform's "valuation" is fair and reasonable.
You will note that coins held by the Eth Foundation are included along with coins held by Satoshi. Even the vesting stake from BitShares has been included for the past year and a half along with the "founders stake" in BitShares.
I am mostly arguing for consistency and fairness of rankings.
Suppose that the vesting period was just 1 week? Would that change the opinion on whether or not they should be counted? Suppose it was 1 month? At what point in time do vesting tokens get "taken out of supply"?
1% of all STEEM could be on the market within 7 days.
5% of all STEEM could be on the market within a month.
50% of all STEEM could be on the market this year.
100% of all STEEM is available for BULK trades today.
Clearly vesting for 1 hour or even 20 hours counts in the supply of Bitcoin (time until new coins are transferrable).
So now we are left with drawing some kind of arbitrary line in the sand. It comes down to a "net present value" calculation.
One thing is certain, a $285K market cap and ranking at over 100 on CMC is grossly out of proportion with actual interest and capital investment in the Steem blockchain.
I am all for having some kind of sanity check on whether or not a platform's "valuation" is fair and reasonable.
You will note that coins held by the Eth Foundation are included along with coins held by Satoshi. Even the vesting stake from BitShares has been included for the past year and a half along with the "founders stake" in BitShares.
I am mostly arguing for consistency and fairness of rankings.
I agree with this. Steem's current available supply is a placeholder until we can figure out the calculation.
So we can make a better informed decision, can someone answer these questions:
What is the vesting period on Steem?
How many coins do the founders hold?
Steem held by Steemit, Inc: 14,331,475.907 https://steemit.com/@steemit -> this is the total STEEM and VESTING STEEM combined (57%).
Steem paid to employees and contractors should not be counted as founders, they are free to sell like anyone else.
Steem vesting can be viewed as a perfectly laddered / rotating 2 year CD. The "average time until maturity" is 1 year. Ie: 1% is available in 1 week and 1% takes 2 years... 50% available in 1 year.
Re: CoinMarketCap.com - Market Cap Rankings of All Cryptocurrencies!
Well I don't think the problem is the use of (OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY), which was added to Bitcoin (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0065.mediawiki) and nice to see being used in other coins.
The problem STEEM has is it was 99% NinjaMined which is worst and more dishonest then PreMined. This was amplifed with public post in other threads. Gliss has STEEM listed proper as it is right now in my eyes, like Ripple.
The problem STEEM has is it was 99% NinjaMined which is worst and more dishonest then PreMined. This was amplifed with public post in other threads. Gliss has STEEM listed proper as it is right now in my eyes, like Ripple.
99% NinjaMined is inaccurate. If you want to talk about founder mining then 60% NinjaMined is right.
The question of "origin of tokens" is almost irrelevant, all that matters is "current ownership" and "present value".
Re: CoinMarketCap.com - Market Cap Rankings of All Cryptocurrencies!
The debate about whether Vesting STEEM or locked up HODL should be included in the market cap should be separated from the debate on whether "founders" coins should be counted. Conflating these two concepts can seriously misrepresent things.
Suppose that the vesting period was just 1 week? Would that change the opinion on whether or not they should be counted? Suppose it was 1 month? At what point in time do vesting tokens get "taken out of supply"?
1% of all STEEM could be on the market within 7 days.
5% of all STEEM could be on the market within a month.
50% of all STEEM could be on the market this year.
100% of all STEEM is available for BULK trades today.
Clearly vesting for 1 hour or even 20 hours counts in the supply of Bitcoin (time until new coins are transferrable).
So now we are left with drawing some kind of arbitrary line in the sand. It comes down to a "net present value" calculation.
One thing is certain, a $285K market cap and ranking at over 100 on CMC is grossly out of proportion with actual interest and capital investment in the Steem blockchain.
I am all for having some kind of sanity check on whether or not a platform's "valuation" is fair and reasonable.
You will note that coins held by the Eth Foundation are included along with coins held by Satoshi. Even the vesting stake from BitShares has been included for the past year and a half along with the "founders stake" in BitShares.
I am mostly arguing for consistency and fairness of rankings.
Suppose that the vesting period was just 1 week? Would that change the opinion on whether or not they should be counted? Suppose it was 1 month? At what point in time do vesting tokens get "taken out of supply"?
1% of all STEEM could be on the market within 7 days.
5% of all STEEM could be on the market within a month.
50% of all STEEM could be on the market this year.
100% of all STEEM is available for BULK trades today.
Clearly vesting for 1 hour or even 20 hours counts in the supply of Bitcoin (time until new coins are transferrable).
So now we are left with drawing some kind of arbitrary line in the sand. It comes down to a "net present value" calculation.
One thing is certain, a $285K market cap and ranking at over 100 on CMC is grossly out of proportion with actual interest and capital investment in the Steem blockchain.
I am all for having some kind of sanity check on whether or not a platform's "valuation" is fair and reasonable.
You will note that coins held by the Eth Foundation are included along with coins held by Satoshi. Even the vesting stake from BitShares has been included for the past year and a half along with the "founders stake" in BitShares.
I am mostly arguing for consistency and fairness of rankings.
Re: CoinMarketCap.com - Market Cap Rankings of All Cryptocurrencies!
STEEM have presented an argument why they should be valued much higher on CMC.
https://steemit.com/steem/@dantheman/how-to-calculate-the-market-capitalization-of-steem
However I think, given they mined at least 80% of the initial STEEM to themselves, which they haven't communicated in their bitcointalk announcement and most of it isn't liquid that it isn't 'available supply' as CMC ranks.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22125.msg288854.html#msg288854
I think that if you used their suggested 'sophisticated measures' anyone could create an over-valued/pumped coin by mining/holding the majority themselves and incentivising the removal of the majority from the liquid supply with less than 0.5% easily available.
Obviously it's up to CMC to evaluate but I think your current method of listing the liquid amount as available and the rest under total like Ripple/STR is correct.
https://steemit.com/steem/@dantheman/how-to-calculate-the-market-capitalization-of-steem
Quote
If websites like coinmarketcap.com wish to remain fair and relevant in their comparisons and rankings of this new generation of cryptocurrency, then they will need to adopt the more sophisticated measures used by real capital markets.
However I think, given they mined at least 80% of the initial STEEM to themselves, which they haven't communicated in their bitcointalk announcement and most of it isn't liquid that it isn't 'available supply' as CMC ranks.
Only 0.47% of STEEM is liquid in individual accounts, this is going to make the pump on CMC legend... wait-for-it... dary!
I...https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22125.msg288854.html#msg288854
I think that if you used their suggested 'sophisticated measures' anyone could create an over-valued/pumped coin by mining/holding the majority themselves and incentivising the removal of the majority from the liquid supply with less than 0.5% easily available.
Obviously it's up to CMC to evaluate but I think your current method of listing the liquid amount as available and the rest under total like Ripple/STR is correct.
https://steemit.com/@steemit => 12,928,066.340 STEEM
With a total current supply of 22,214,424.000 STEEM means Steemit has 58% and the rest is held by community members.
So even if you wanted to factor out Steem held by Steemit, the current methodology of factoring out all vesting *users* is wrong.
If you create 10 billion shares, and sell 1 of them for $1.00 back and forth with yourself to generate millions in daily volume, it obviously doesn't create a coin that should be listed above Bitcoin. Which is what the scammers would attempt to do.
So the real question is whether or not there exists a legitimate market with actual trades with many independent individuals valuing the coin or whether it is a closed market with a bunch of sock puppets. In effect, are all trades in the token based upon arms-length fair valuation / speculation or are the trades simply moving money from one pocket to another.
At a certain point it becomes obvious the market is pricing in the full supply rather than just part of it. Does it really make sense that someone buying STEEM, then converting it to VESTS should REDUCE the market cap?
Soon the ridiculousness of the current method will become apparent when Steem Backed Dollars will have a higher market-cap than the STEEM that is backing it.
So I think there is a case to be made that a chain is either "public" or "private" with a value set by the "market" or by "decree". It is easy enough to tell the difference.
Quote
If it were possible to design a proof of work system that effectively eliminated the ability to pool mining would that be an improvement or not?
this would bring up the barrier to entry for mining bitcoin several orders of magnitude. not good.
With pooled mining, anyone, even someone with very very bad internet connection and low hashrate CAN mine bitcoin. the fact that a handful pools each have a big slice of hashing power is not an issue, pools must behave they way there users want them to behave, Individual miners choose the pool they mine at, if they are unhappy with the way to pool operates they will leave an another pool.
not only does pool mining greatly lower the barrier to entry, I believe they will be instrumental in scaling bitcoin while keeping it highly decentralized.
Having low-latency internet is just another kind of POW, like having a fast CPU, a GPU, or any other kind of work.
Mining pools should actually be considered good thinking that not all miners are able to find a block on their own to get a full reward, but instead of that, in pools, one is at least assured of having a secured share for his mining work, one can at least gain what one invested into mining...
This could be mostly mitigated by moving to 3 second block intervals. Under this model you effectively turn the blockchain INTO a pool by allowing 200 times as many blocks to be produced, each with a reward of 0.5%.
Quote
"Solo mining even with 100,000 people, is meaningless and creates a reduction in the difficulty, ths increasing risk of attack aswell as blocks that wont be solved every 10 minutes on average. but days-weeks-years..."
This statement is false. Blocks will continue to be produced on average every 10 minutes with or without pools.
With 100,000 people who have equal hashing power, they will produce a block on average once every 2 years.
With 144 mining conglomerates they would each produce a block once per day.... of course, if you increase mining frequency to once per minute, then you could have 1440 conglomerates each producing on average once per day.
The end result is that hash power would end up held by a couple thousand conglomerates each of which would still have acceptable variance.
Anyone with 0.05% or more of total hash power could produce daily. Anyone with .001% of the hash power could produce monthly.
How many total individual miners does Bitcoin have today? There are only ~500,000 unspent outputs. If 1% of all bitcoiners have mining hardware, that would be 5000 people mining.
How many individuals miners actively mining less than 0.08 BTC per month? Those are the only individuals who might get excluded by solo mining.