Decentralization is meant to be this way that people can fork any coin they'd like, you may find it abusing but its what makes it decentralized. Anonymity is another thing to abused though. You just have to figure which project you can classify as stupid than fairly good and decide whether to send money to it or not.
Agree. A cryptocurrency that cannot be forked at will, as well as, lacking permission-less characteristics, is not considered decentralized. It's normal to experience thousands of forks from a single project, as it's beneficial for the maturity of Blockchain technology. There can be as many copies from Bitcoin within the market, but only those that are solid in development and innovation will most likely prevail in the future. If you're considering investing into an altcoin or Bitcoin fork, you need to decide whenever it's worth spending your money on it or not. This is done by researching about a specific crypto project you're interested into.
this is sometimes where some people mis interpret and start to think the only way to innovate and have a strong project is to use forks to push out the weak idea's and then keep only the strong idea's as a single project under one teams control.
to insinuate that what you say means that bitcoin needs one lead team IS centralising.
the whole concept and revolution of 2009's invention is that different people do not NEED to split off when an idea is promoted.. instead the true "honest node" consensus is that changes to rules simply do no occur unless there is diverse agreement that the change is beneficial to the majority on the network.. without splitting up the network.
research byzantine generals.
so those trying to insinuate the only way to upgrade a network is to fork away opposers is literally abusing the bitcoins prime purpose of consensus.
yes people can make as many altcoins as they like. if they want to make their own altcoin. no one is forced to stay. but in th same breathe no one should ever be forced to leave before an upgrade purely to fake a majority.
that means a certain team should not get to control bitcoin and be ultimate lead by forking off opposers, forcing people off bitcoin just so one group gets their way is not consensus nor is it being a honest node majority.
if a certain team proposes an idea. and there is no HONEST NODE majority.. then the upgrade does not occur no harm no foul.. obviously the idea was not good enough... end of story move on
the proposer should then listen to the community, figure out the objections and find a solution that a majority would settle for.
if your mindset is still foolishly thinking bitcoin needs a leader and forks are needed and control from a central group is needed then please research the byzantine generals issue and the things that bitcoin solved when it was invented in 2009,, before trying to rebutt to insinuate that bitcoin can only function centrally via forking out opposing views
regulations and single lead team reference clients goes against the whole point of bitcoin.
if you want scam safety. try getting politics of countries(not crypto) to actually build laws that make it easier for users to sue/charge a scammer.
you dont need to regulate the currency/network. you need to make legal recourse in a courtroom easier to access for victims, and then education about self awareness, due diligence to help prevention of scams/theft.
regulations dont do either. but consumer protections does