Monopoly-Resistant Mining? Paper Claims Bitcoin Centralization Fears Overblown

Bitcoin can be naturally resistant to monopoly monopoly - or so, by the university professor Nicola Dimitri of the University of Economy, demanded a new research paper.

At high level, the paper "thinks that the internal structure of the mine activity is preventing the formation of monolithic structures", which is a matter of concern that currently gives much power to the miners.

A laser journal, which covers only blockquane research, explains how the paper explains in an equation, the mines do not necessarily leave the system, because other mining can in any way benefit from cutting their costs.

According to PhD Rijun, according to Ledger's co-founder and co-managing editor, the conclusion of the Cryptocurrence community is quite "important".

Bitcoin Unlimited, a scientist implementing an email, resin, alternative Bitcoin, told Singeng:

"The mindset of most communities today" It is very important that all the mining basically have the same profitable hash-per-hash, otherwise the most profitable mining will continue throughout all the time until he controls all the power.

The centralization of the miners for developers is particularly concerned about mining power.

For one, at least one mining pool has been used in mining more efficient ways - known as ASICBoost - increase profits, which some might think might leave other mining, said Rizon. And two, many believe that slow block promotion facilitates large mining workers, but also prevent small organizations, they continue.

However, he claims that the papers add more game-theoretical colors that encourage Minor and that these issues can not negatively affect users.

How much control?

It is not only the developer, although it is concerned.

CryptocoRarency Community is often aware of how many controls are mining, or may have been in theory in a particular position, exhibit a kind of mistrust that is made up of the group, and it was especially evident in recent Bitcoin Skilling controversy.

Some users think that the factory has more impact on technical decision-making, for example.

And which was highlighted in one of the media posts of Marquez Rijunan, which many readers had argued that mine workers could go from Bitcoin to Bitcoin Unlimited.

It is hoped that this post got comments like controversial debate, Bitcoin contributor Menei Rosenfeld: "It's a mockery and standing against everyone representing Bitcoin."

Say very quickly

Particularly controversial is the fact that its potential developers will find fault with the explanation of Rizoun's research. Even its author, Dmitry notes may be too early to estimate in detail.

"In his simplicity, the model is excluded from a number of elements, which can be investigated in future studies," he said in the paper.

And Dmitry further acknowledges that other variables, especially those that have been controversial since the date of Bitcoin debate, can change the count.

He finished the paper:

"The current dispute and block size interest among them, which can affect the main decision on paper, is at least relevant to the number of active mining so far."