Satoshi Nakamoto on CPU Bitcoin mining and GPU arms race
610 sats \ 14 comments \ @rod 28 Jul bitcoin
Satoshi made this statement in a post on the BitcoinTalk forum in 2013
'We should have a gentleman’s agreement to postpone the GPU arms race as long as we can for the good of the network. It’s much easer to get new users up to speed if they don’t have to worry about GPU drivers and compatibility. It’s nice how anyone with just a CPU can compete fairly equally right now.' Satoshi Nakamoto
He knew that mining could get centralized, unfortunately we did not manage to stop the GPU arms race that he correctly predicted, quite impressive he saw that coming.
Now is a multi billion dollar industry, very unlikely we will ever go back to decentralized mining.
write
preview
related posts
21 sats \ 3 replies \ @WeAreAllSatoshi 28 Jul
Link to the post?
reply
100 sats \ 2 replies \ @rod OP 28 Jul
Link to the quote?
A simple search should get you there, there are many
It is recorded as the quote number 76 of Satoshi
Here a couple:
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3572/when-was-the-first-gpu-miner-made-available-publicly
https://quotefancy.com/satoshi-nakamoto-quotes/page/2
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @WeAreAllSatoshi 28 Jul
Thank you. I’m sure I could have found it, too, I just think it’s nice to provide a source when you quote people in posts.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @rod OP 28 Jul
No problem, however, adding links to a quote seems not logical, if one doubt's the veracity of a quote, a search for more than one source is required, posting a quote and justifying the source is not practical, it is like thinking that you have no credibility from the get go...
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @RdioActiv 28 Jul
If mining becomes too centralized, all it takes is a hard fork to change the algorithm making their mining equipment an expensive door stop.
It is in their best interest to play fair. Consensus is driven by nodes, not miners.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @rod OP 28 Jul
I like your take very much, as the moto goes since the beginning, one node one vote, proudly running several nodes myself, but mining hash rate matters, a lot!
Maybe you know this already and if so, my apologies, but, miners have an enormous power, the majority of the hash rate is the code of the network, if centralized in few companies or countries, risk management is required, they could hard fork Bitcoin into whatever they want it to be, create another war like the one we had with BCH, that was ugly, suffice to say it was not easy, if you were around you know what I am talking about...
Check the mining distribution today:
https://m.stacker.news/42167 source: https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/charts/pools
Latest data in blockchain.com shows the following:
The ones in USA:
Foundry USA is based in Rochester, New York. 28.93% Mara Pool is based in North America. 3.59% Ultimus Pool is based in the United States. 0.41% USA hash rate: 32.93%
The ones in China:
AntPool is based in Beijing, China. 25.00% F2Pool is based in China. 12.11% ViaBTC is based in Shenzhen, Guangdong, China. 11.76% BTC.com Pool is primarily based in China. 1.14% Poolin Pool is based in Beijing, China. 0.99% BTCM4 Pool is based in China. 0.89 China hash rate: 51.89%
As you can observe, Bitcoin mining is not decentralized enough, and, in terms of hash rate, 2 companies control more than 50% of the hash rate which is already not good, but more important, one country controlled closely by the government, has 51.89% of the hash rate. Risk management is required. And China, most probably wont advocate for transaction privacy.
Being humble matters, understanding the dangers and preparing countermeasures is important and we are not in a good position, the cultist, the maximalist with attitude and the ones that have not study enough the risk case scenarios and only care about the green candles will tell the masses otherwise, all is well, Bitcoin doesn't care, and so on, but the truth is, we can't be complacent.
What happen if they fork to a core version I do not support?
You can choose to run in your node the Bitcoin Core version you like, your node your vote. Most Bitcoiners will say, if we all run in our nodes the version A they can't beat us. And that is partially truth, yes, you will keep running your version of Bitcoin and now there will be two chains, and you will have the same amount of the token in both networks.
Both will be called Bitcoin?
No, now it comes the next layer of consensus, equally important; wallets, merchants, centralized exchanges, decentralized exchanges, specially the wallets and exchanges, they will name and route in their platforms BTC with the network they agree, being the one you like or not, as it happened with Bitcoin Cash.
Any one who agreed with Roger Ver version of Bitcoin was running a BCH node, and therefore needed not only the node but a different wallet as well, and it was not able to deposit or withdraw from Coinbase (for example) anything but the old Bitcoin using an old version of the node or an old version of a Bitcoin wallet. If Coinbase and other CEXs plus major wallet providers at the time agreed with Roger Ver vision, Bitcoin today would be something else.
Another Bitcoin war would be too messy, too complex and crazy expensive, that is a deterrence, therefore, changes will require consensus, one that can be achieved via gas lighting, propaganda, paid shills (influencers), buying key players and so on would be the most probable vector of attack to soft fork instead of hard fork.
Why there are not more miners across the world?
Because is very expensive to compete with this companies, ASICs are not cheap, although there are some initiatives that are important, but we are not there, exactly what Satoshi said will happen, and here we are.
I wrote this article in Aug 2023, check the section "Attempts to control the asset in the long term", I develop ideas on potential attack vectors and countermeasures
#226279
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @quark 28 Jul
We should have a gentleman's agreement to postpone the GPU arms race
Then it is clear that bitcoin miners are not gentlemen. Maybe he understood that mining would go centralized and lost interest in the project.
reply
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @jgbtc 28 Jul
Was that "Satoshi's vision"? Dude, just get to the monero sales pitch already.
reply
21 sats \ 5 replies \ @rod OP 28 Jul
Monero? Why you even mention Monero out of a Satoshi Nakamoto quote... I believe there is a category in SN called Crypto where you can discuss and shill other coins
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @jgbtc 28 Jul
That's where shitcoiners discuss the BTC core gatekeepers and their landlords. You'll fit right in.
reply
221 sats \ 3 replies \ @rod OP 28 Jul
“Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.” Eleanor Roosevelt
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @jgbtc 28 Jul
And retarded minds name drop Satoshi in appeals to authority. Let me guess, we need ASIC resistant mining now or bitcoin is doomed? To review: First you posted about the dire need for a L1 privacy solution, then you posted about mining centralization and how Satoshi himself wants CPU mining. Like I said, get on with the monero sales pitch. Let's hear it.
reply
500 sats \ 1 reply \ @eespn 28 Jul
Dude, shut up already, stop embarrassing yourself, either way.
Muted, what an unpleasant person you are.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jgbtc 28 Jul
Gee wiz. I call out an obvious scammer and that's the thanks I get? All I asked for was the sales pitch. Fortunately I found it so I won't need to ask for it anymore.
#241591
reply