The paper below demonstrates some of the problems with much of academia https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.08092
Throughout the day I'm going to deconstruct this part by part.
Right from the beginning it starts with
"In a decentralised setting these measures are limited by two underlying physical network attributes:
communication capacity and speed-of-light propagation delay."
Then of course the authors introduce the real reason for the paper which is often overlooked.
The authors introduce Prism
So in effect, the entire purpose of the paper is not to understand bitcoin or any other system for that matter but rather to promote their own system.
It is a marketing paper that is deceptively promoted as if it is an academic paper. This is an example of first-year science students will be taught to reject as being self-serving and biased.
They make a claim that they deconstruct bitcoin but I will demonstrate that this is not been done anywhere in this paper and rather the authors are intentionally promoting a false concept in order to promote their own system.
This is something that should be a subject of an academic integrity review for the authors especially given the nature of where they come from
1.1 Performance measures
These are not the fundamental performance measures of a Blockchain.
The amount of hash power it is not relevant to the performance operations in any way. Rather it is an indicator of an economic process.
No mention is made of the propagation of block headers.
The distribution of block headers is the most crucial aspect of the bitcoin security function. Note, I have stated block headers and not blocks. So the authors have already set up a false view designed to deceive the reader prior to even getting into the first section.
In order to sell their own product, they talk about a throughput of only a few transactions per second.
This of course is false.
BTC has intentionally limited throughput which is not the capability of bitcoin, but then, the purpose of this paper is not to analyse bitcoin but rather again to deceptively promote an alternate form of Cryptocurrency system that the authors seek to promote rather than digital cash because they want their names to be associated with it.
They have a financial interest in deceiving the reader
In the same calculations, the authors intentionally introduce false calculations about the latency and throughput building on the already erroneous claim of only a few transactions are second to say that the requirement to wait six blocks as part of a transaction process as well
The definition of confirmed latency it is completely made up in the way that they have proposed that. For a given probability that a transaction will be removed from the ledger is simple hogwash
There is no basis for this in any way rather the authors have a false claim of authority and I definitively say false here because this is a example of incredibly low academic integrity
By low I mean pond scum, but this is not the analysis of the paper
A process where blocks are orphaned does not lead to an attacker removing transactions from the ledger as they are falsely describing. Again, anyone who understood or took the time to analyse the protocol would also see that there is a 100 block maturity level required for miners to get paid. So it is in the interest economically of miners to build a system that will not have their blocks rejected within that timeframe.
Buterin is a child without any formal education. He has never been trained in basic mathematics little and cryptography. He has never been trained in security. He's never been trained in risk. He has no concept of these disciplines so why would anyone in their right mind take anything that he states about it with any level of seriousness
CSW
Mar 19, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1616135820145000?thread_ts=1616135820.145000&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2514
Throughout the day I'm going to deconstruct this part by part.
Right from the beginning it starts with
"In a decentralised setting these measures are limited by two underlying physical network attributes:
communication capacity and speed-of-light propagation delay."
Then of course the authors introduce the real reason for the paper which is often overlooked.
The authors introduce Prism
So in effect, the entire purpose of the paper is not to understand bitcoin or any other system for that matter but rather to promote their own system.
It is a marketing paper that is deceptively promoted as if it is an academic paper. This is an example of first-year science students will be taught to reject as being self-serving and biased.
They make a claim that they deconstruct bitcoin but I will demonstrate that this is not been done anywhere in this paper and rather the authors are intentionally promoting a false concept in order to promote their own system.
This is something that should be a subject of an academic integrity review for the authors especially given the nature of where they come from
1.1 Performance measures
These are not the fundamental performance measures of a Blockchain.
The amount of hash power it is not relevant to the performance operations in any way. Rather it is an indicator of an economic process.
No mention is made of the propagation of block headers.
The distribution of block headers is the most crucial aspect of the bitcoin security function. Note, I have stated block headers and not blocks. So the authors have already set up a false view designed to deceive the reader prior to even getting into the first section.
In order to sell their own product, they talk about a throughput of only a few transactions per second.
This of course is false.
BTC has intentionally limited throughput which is not the capability of bitcoin, but then, the purpose of this paper is not to analyse bitcoin but rather again to deceptively promote an alternate form of Cryptocurrency system that the authors seek to promote rather than digital cash because they want their names to be associated with it.
They have a financial interest in deceiving the reader
In the same calculations, the authors intentionally introduce false calculations about the latency and throughput building on the already erroneous claim of only a few transactions are second to say that the requirement to wait six blocks as part of a transaction process as well
The definition of confirmed latency it is completely made up in the way that they have proposed that. For a given probability that a transaction will be removed from the ledger is simple hogwash
There is no basis for this in any way rather the authors have a false claim of authority and I definitively say false here because this is a example of incredibly low academic integrity
By low I mean pond scum, but this is not the analysis of the paper
A process where blocks are orphaned does not lead to an attacker removing transactions from the ledger as they are falsely describing. Again, anyone who understood or took the time to analyse the protocol would also see that there is a 100 block maturity level required for miners to get paid. So it is in the interest economically of miners to build a system that will not have their blocks rejected within that timeframe.
Buterin is a child without any formal education. He has never been trained in basic mathematics little and cryptography. He has never been trained in security. He's never been trained in risk. He has no concept of these disciplines so why would anyone in their right mind take anything that he states about it with any level of seriousness
CSW
Mar 19, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1616135820145000?thread_ts=1616135820.145000&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2514
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Mar 17, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1616135820145000?thread_ts=1616135820.145000&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2514
Mar 17, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1616135820145000?thread_ts=1616135820.145000&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2514
The purpose of bitcoin is to make a digital cash system that enables micropayments and can be used for other extensions that people create.
Individuals exchanging one to the other over SPV is decentralised.
the protocol is not
the protocol is set
the protocol was created by me and doesn't change
the issuer is not decentralised but rather happens to be the people who launched a particular system
CSW
Apr 11, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1618134617024500?thread_ts=1618134617.024500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2516
Individuals exchanging one to the other over SPV is decentralised.
the protocol is not
the protocol is set
the protocol was created by me and doesn't change
the issuer is not decentralised but rather happens to be the people who launched a particular system
CSW
Apr 11, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1618134617024500?thread_ts=1618134617.024500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2516
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Apr 11, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1618134617024500?thread_ts=1618134617.024500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2516
Apr 11, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1618134617024500?thread_ts=1618134617.024500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2516
Lightning is an account based system. The commodity is between that is being exchanged under an agreement for amounts to be repaid.
There is a reason I selected bitcoin to be a commodity token. under small amounts, there are no requirements for any AML and it can act as cash.
However, the lightning system has moved away from this and is offering a derivative or promissory note based on the later transfer of bitcoin. Do not transmit bitcoin using lightning. You have a promise to repay and that is not the same thing.
In this, each hub is maintaining a separate list of connection requirements and has a separate process as a money handler.
CSW
Apr 18, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1618740902438300?thread_ts=1618739560.436900&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2519
There is a reason I selected bitcoin to be a commodity token. under small amounts, there are no requirements for any AML and it can act as cash.
However, the lightning system has moved away from this and is offering a derivative or promissory note based on the later transfer of bitcoin. Do not transmit bitcoin using lightning. You have a promise to repay and that is not the same thing.
In this, each hub is maintaining a separate list of connection requirements and has a separate process as a money handler.
CSW
Apr 18, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1618740902438300?thread_ts=1618739560.436900&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2519
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Apr 18, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1618740902438300?thread_ts=1618739560.436900&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2519
Apr 18, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1618740902438300?thread_ts=1618739560.436900&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2519
Question:
@CSW If all the Central Banks issued their CBDCs as tokens on BSV, it would be possible to create a basket of currencies and then issue an 'algorythmic stablecoin' like MKR/DAI against them, wouldn't it? And then that 'stablecoin' could act as a universal world currency, couldn't it?
No. Bitcoin is cash. It is not current money.
A currency can be constructed, but this will not occur. No government has a reason for this but many to oppose it.
CBDCs will occur
I hope all on BSV
But, a world currency means a world government
Globalisation is a socialistic lie
National identity and hierarchy are human traits
The never moved towards globalisation. Fukuyama was way off. In the next 2 decades expect regional conflict, isolation and pacts
Globalisation is a left wing academic lie.
It really doesn't exist. To think so is to embrace naivety
We are heading to a clash of cultures
Bloody auto screwup
The never moved towards globalisation. Fukyama
That is trade, trade is always global
Oil from the USSR was sold in the 60s in the west
Global migration in 1900 was 3x that of today
There is nothing inevitable about global socialism
Mark my words, nationalism will be strong in about 15 to 20 years
Plato in Greece and Cato in Rome discussed globalisation too...
A limited definition
And, economic influence was there from Rome
A crop failure in India in the 1700s effect the UK
And statistical we have lower migration than 120 years ago
And, there will not be a global currency.
No government will do that. Even the EU is starting to fray
Even in a world of gold backed money, there has never been a global currency
And, bitcoin is NOT a currency.
Bitcoin cannot become a reserve currency. It has nothing to make it one. It becomes paper, a commodity. Notes are on paper, yet, the USD and RMB are not linked.
The daily exchange of currency is in the 100 trillion range. Bitcoin can settle this, bitcoin cannot hope to ever make a small dent in that let alone replace it.
To work that way, bitcoin would need a 100 trillion base and a 0.0001 usd fee
Sorry, not mathematically possible
No. CBDC is not cash, more visa debit, an account
Can be, but they are not trying
Like the USD who are politically neutral...
CSW
Apr 21, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1619036808155200?thread_ts=1619036808.155200&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2521
@CSW If all the Central Banks issued their CBDCs as tokens on BSV, it would be possible to create a basket of currencies and then issue an 'algorythmic stablecoin' like MKR/DAI against them, wouldn't it? And then that 'stablecoin' could act as a universal world currency, couldn't it?
No. Bitcoin is cash. It is not current money.
A currency can be constructed, but this will not occur. No government has a reason for this but many to oppose it.
CBDCs will occur
I hope all on BSV
But, a world currency means a world government
Globalisation is a socialistic lie
National identity and hierarchy are human traits
The never moved towards globalisation. Fukuyama was way off. In the next 2 decades expect regional conflict, isolation and pacts
Globalisation is a left wing academic lie.
It really doesn't exist. To think so is to embrace naivety
We are heading to a clash of cultures
Bloody auto screwup
The never moved towards globalisation. Fukyama
That is trade, trade is always global
Oil from the USSR was sold in the 60s in the west
Global migration in 1900 was 3x that of today
There is nothing inevitable about global socialism
Mark my words, nationalism will be strong in about 15 to 20 years
Plato in Greece and Cato in Rome discussed globalisation too...
A limited definition
And, economic influence was there from Rome
A crop failure in India in the 1700s effect the UK
And statistical we have lower migration than 120 years ago
And, there will not be a global currency.
No government will do that. Even the EU is starting to fray
Even in a world of gold backed money, there has never been a global currency
And, bitcoin is NOT a currency.
Bitcoin cannot become a reserve currency. It has nothing to make it one. It becomes paper, a commodity. Notes are on paper, yet, the USD and RMB are not linked.
The daily exchange of currency is in the 100 trillion range. Bitcoin can settle this, bitcoin cannot hope to ever make a small dent in that let alone replace it.
To work that way, bitcoin would need a 100 trillion base and a 0.0001 usd fee
Sorry, not mathematically possible
No. CBDC is not cash, more visa debit, an account
Can be, but they are not trying
Like the USD who are politically neutral...
CSW
Apr 21, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1619036808155200?thread_ts=1619036808.155200&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2521
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Apr 21, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1619036808155200?thread_ts=1619036808.155200&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2521
Apr 21, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1619036808155200?thread_ts=1619036808.155200&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2521
The first thing people don't realise is that I don't follow the herd.
I do things my way. I succeed or fail my way. If you don't like it, too bad.
I have no obligation and I have never had any obligation to prove to people in any way or to do anything to the population at large in any way.
To think that I am required to all that I owe you is to show ignorance. Those who believe that because I created bitcoin means that I have to follow the group mentality have no idea about how bitcoin works.
It is not about democratising finance
It is not about the collective
Honestly, screw the collective
Bitcoin was created by one man, me.
I didn't receive large amounts of help or encouragement from anybody, so to think that I owe anybody now and that I should act in a manner that people state is how I should act is to fail to understand bitcoin
bitcoin is not about the collective
bitcoin works within the law
bitcoin is not opposed to governments or banks, it is a cash system
CSW
Apr 22, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1619089151200500?thread_ts=1619089151.200500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2523
I do things my way. I succeed or fail my way. If you don't like it, too bad.
I have no obligation and I have never had any obligation to prove to people in any way or to do anything to the population at large in any way.
To think that I am required to all that I owe you is to show ignorance. Those who believe that because I created bitcoin means that I have to follow the group mentality have no idea about how bitcoin works.
It is not about democratising finance
It is not about the collective
Honestly, screw the collective
Bitcoin was created by one man, me.
I didn't receive large amounts of help or encouragement from anybody, so to think that I owe anybody now and that I should act in a manner that people state is how I should act is to fail to understand bitcoin
bitcoin is not about the collective
bitcoin works within the law
bitcoin is not opposed to governments or banks, it is a cash system
CSW
Apr 22, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1619089151200500?thread_ts=1619089151.200500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2523
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Apr 22, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1619089151200500?thread_ts=1619089151.200500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2523
Apr 22, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1619089151200500?thread_ts=1619089151.200500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2523
This will never make small casual transactions a problem. You see, the cost of obtaining a court order will be in the tens of thousands of dollars. As such, it will be like existing cash laws where if you lose 20 pounds on the street, you have lost 20 pounds and the finder can take it.
Alternatively if you lose $10,000 in a shopping centre, you have a right to recover it and the finder has no expectations to keep it.
CSW
Apr 24, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1619256267421200?thread_ts=1614172750.042600&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2525
Alternatively if you lose $10,000 in a shopping centre, you have a right to recover it and the finder has no expectations to keep it.
CSW
Apr 24, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1619256267421200?thread_ts=1614172750.042600&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2525
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Apr 24, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1619256267421200?thread_ts=1614172750.042600&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2525
Apr 24, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1619256267421200?thread_ts=1614172750.042600&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2525
For those who say Anonymous Speech did not take credit cards...
https://web.archive.org/web/20090123081753/http://anonymousspeech.com/products.aspx
Sorry.
You fail again
https://web.archive.org/web/20070223100630/http://www.anonymousspeech.com/products.aspx
CSW
Jun 4, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1622802223044100?thread_ts=1622802223.044100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2527
https://web.archive.org/web/20090123081753/http://anonymousspeech.com/products.aspx
Sorry.
You fail again
https://web.archive.org/web/20070223100630/http://www.anonymousspeech.com/products.aspx
CSW
Jun 4, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1622802223044100?thread_ts=1622802223.044100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2527
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Jun 4, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1622802223044100?thread_ts=1622802223.044100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2527
Jun 4, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1622802223044100?thread_ts=1622802223.044100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2527
I have been studying this empirically for the last four years. We definitely have more concentration in mining. I always expected professionalisation but the nature is different to what I foresaw. However, the changes that are going to occur in this halving in the next will have profound effects.
I stated many years ago that bitcoin would have an immense transaction volume or none. In the next eight and a bit years we are going to halve three times. That takes us to 6.25% of remaining bitcoin, 3.125% of remaining bitcoin and then only under 1.6% remaining bitcoin respectively for each halving. You will notice the reward matches exactly the amount of remaining bitcoin at the start and a percent.
CSW
SEP 24, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1569352568275800
I stated many years ago that bitcoin would have an immense transaction volume or none. In the next eight and a bit years we are going to halve three times. That takes us to 6.25% of remaining bitcoin, 3.125% of remaining bitcoin and then only under 1.6% remaining bitcoin respectively for each halving. You will notice the reward matches exactly the amount of remaining bitcoin at the start and a percent.
CSW
SEP 24, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1569352568275800
At the 20 year mark over 98% of bitcoin will be mined. Any market impact through miners selling will be minimal at this point. The start to notice it in the current halving and then the effect will be large by the next.
There is no million-dollar bitcoin without use and I don't see it occurring within 30 years. If this works, it means that we have built a system over decades.
21:19
Luckily, the nature of pool mining is about to change. The use of a double hash puzzle allows us to specialise. Only in BSV now because I was forced to patent this.
CSW
sep 24, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1569352678276000 https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2531
There is no million-dollar bitcoin without use and I don't see it occurring within 30 years. If this works, it means that we have built a system over decades.
21:19
Luckily, the nature of pool mining is about to change. The use of a double hash puzzle allows us to specialise. Only in BSV now because I was forced to patent this.
CSW
sep 24, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1569352678276000 https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2531
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
All of those individual systems pretending to be nodes will start to drop off and no longer act as miners. The end is that as the system becomes larger and larger, only a few miners can compete. Each of these will specialise and compete. So, over time, the number of nodes acting to provide proof of work decreases. The number of remaining systems will be small but with significant investment.
It is not the act of hashing that secures the network. A hash is an integrity function. It does not provide security or minimise risk. In bitcoin, hash is used primarily to prove cost and demonstrate investment. That is what the system is about.
There is no big blocks and better, there is number of transactions.
Bitcoin is a transaction system. Nodes are paid in transaction fees. The subsidy will vanish shortly. Those promoting small blocks are seeking a system that stays under the radar. They're hoping to solve the problem I worked on for 20 years and create a system that can act outside of the law. They won't. They fail to understand that all computer systems link to the real world. There is no cyberpunk heaven existing outside of reality.
And no, large blocks do not increase cost. They increase profit. Like all things, and equilibrium forms based on the two sides of the scissors, cost and revenue. However, cost does not increase. Money moves from the investment in hash power into other aspects of the system including hard drives and computational power that is needed to verify more transactions.
As such, for a given revenue rate (which will go up with use forming larger blocks) the cost remains a function of the profitability of the miner. As the cost of validating large blocks increases, miners will move investment away from pure hashing and towards other systems. I personally think bitmain understands this. This is an issue in that they seek to minimise the growth of the blockchain at present because they are still earning revenue and more critically, their only competitive on hash rate and systems based on that. Once transaction volume becomes important, bitmain's basically down the tube.
On top of this, there are economies of scale. One developer and one network administrator in a large system can run many many systems. Where individuals run nodes, the lack of specialisation leads to inefficiencies. (editado)
The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power.
Not ASiCs
You will discover this after the halvings start to bite
También se ha enviado al canal
The Whitepaper details CPU power and not computational power associated with solving hash puzzles. As the network matures, it will be necessary to earn more revenue through transaction processing. Bitcoin nodes are paid through a combination of a time diminishing subsidy and the collection of fees for the processing of a wide variety of template-based transactions. Although the solutions to hash puzzles allows a node to earn a percentage of the network blocks, if they do not simultaneously solve transactions to create fees, the amount that they earn will remain small. Consequently, nodes that invest less in hash power may solve fewer blocks overall but still collect more fees.
As was noted above, CPU power is not merely the computational power associated with solving the hash puzzle and forming a block. Rather, CPU power incorporates the entire process associated with forming the block. As the block subsidy diminishes, the collection of transactional fees will become more important. To earn fees, bitcoin miners or nodes need to compete with the existing system. In competition with existing payment providers, the strength of the bitcoin network is in the ability to deliver micropayments. To compete, bitcoin needs to be able to earn ample revenue to leave nodes profitable whilst charging under 10% of any existing payment solution.
It is not the act of hashing that secures the network. A hash is an integrity function. It does not provide security or minimise risk. In bitcoin, hash is used primarily to prove cost and demonstrate investment. That is what the system is about.
There is no big blocks and better, there is number of transactions.
Bitcoin is a transaction system. Nodes are paid in transaction fees. The subsidy will vanish shortly. Those promoting small blocks are seeking a system that stays under the radar. They're hoping to solve the problem I worked on for 20 years and create a system that can act outside of the law. They won't. They fail to understand that all computer systems link to the real world. There is no cyberpunk heaven existing outside of reality.
And no, large blocks do not increase cost. They increase profit. Like all things, and equilibrium forms based on the two sides of the scissors, cost and revenue. However, cost does not increase. Money moves from the investment in hash power into other aspects of the system including hard drives and computational power that is needed to verify more transactions.
As such, for a given revenue rate (which will go up with use forming larger blocks) the cost remains a function of the profitability of the miner. As the cost of validating large blocks increases, miners will move investment away from pure hashing and towards other systems. I personally think bitmain understands this. This is an issue in that they seek to minimise the growth of the blockchain at present because they are still earning revenue and more critically, their only competitive on hash rate and systems based on that. Once transaction volume becomes important, bitmain's basically down the tube.
On top of this, there are economies of scale. One developer and one network administrator in a large system can run many many systems. Where individuals run nodes, the lack of specialisation leads to inefficiencies. (editado)
The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power.
Not ASiCs
You will discover this after the halvings start to bite
También se ha enviado al canal
The Whitepaper details CPU power and not computational power associated with solving hash puzzles. As the network matures, it will be necessary to earn more revenue through transaction processing. Bitcoin nodes are paid through a combination of a time diminishing subsidy and the collection of fees for the processing of a wide variety of template-based transactions. Although the solutions to hash puzzles allows a node to earn a percentage of the network blocks, if they do not simultaneously solve transactions to create fees, the amount that they earn will remain small. Consequently, nodes that invest less in hash power may solve fewer blocks overall but still collect more fees.
As was noted above, CPU power is not merely the computational power associated with solving the hash puzzle and forming a block. Rather, CPU power incorporates the entire process associated with forming the block. As the block subsidy diminishes, the collection of transactional fees will become more important. To earn fees, bitcoin miners or nodes need to compete with the existing system. In competition with existing payment providers, the strength of the bitcoin network is in the ability to deliver micropayments. To compete, bitcoin needs to be able to earn ample revenue to leave nodes profitable whilst charging under 10% of any existing payment solution.