Topic: Banks are more decentralised than Bitcoin? (Read 685 times)

Have no meaning to do such comparison. Bitcoin is owned only by its miners and not by the pools. The pools today may exist and tomorrow not; can be demolished or can be stolen the server, can go something wrong and can be damaged the software, the software can be infected with spyware, malware or virus and become irreparable or even the owner of the pool can be dead. Can happen even more other things that cannot be imagined by no one. After the above the pool don't exist anymore. Then can be created even other 100 pools without having necessity to take permission from no one. Or having such permission (if needed) without any problem. It was enough to fulfill the conditions. Thing this not difficult to be made if the owner of the pool has decided to create it. So the above 10 pools will become 110.

While the place of every bank in Federal Reserve is untouchable by no one and irreplaceable until the possible consensus of the parts who are involved on it about the decision to sell it to someone else. No one factor can touch it. Nor the dead of someone and neither other external and unpredictable factors as it is in the case of the bitcoin mining pools. Depends only from the will of the Executives and other Responsible of the bank (or who have to do with the bank or its place at Federal Reserve), which have that place. They may dead but will be replaced immediately and the place at Federal Reserve will have not any consequence.

The seven members of the Fed's Board of Governors (the entity that defines the monetary policy of the US) are nominated for the position by the US president and confirmed by the US Senate...

So you get an idea how "decentralized" the Fed actually is

Note also that the number of banks associated with the US Federal Reserve very, very rarely changes, while the number of central mining pools change all the time. I see 15 of them right there:

https://blockchain.info/pools

Some rich investor could launch a new mining pool next year, and he would be entirely free to set up this new business. Can you go to the Federal Reserve and ask to join the other banks there?

Actually no pools can change the monetary policy of bitcoin, unlike those banks can always reach an agreement of printing more money (500% more during last QE, equal to a 500% tax on everyone using fiat money except banks)

If a pool tries to change the monetary policy of bitcoin, he will just fork into another coin which no one cares about

ha ha ha... indeed! 

Sure, but every single full node gets to choose which blocks and transactions meet the consensus rules, and which don't.

How many full nodes are there?

Additionally, mining pools are beholden to their mining participants.  There is nothing locking in the hash power and preventing miners from switching to a different pool (or creating a new one on their own) it they are unhappy with the choices of the pool. Therefore, every mining participant essentially has their own vote weighted by the amount of hashpower that they are supplying to the pool.

Can you say the same of the Federal Reserve? Can anyone create their own voting interest without permission?  Can the users of the governing banks directly affect the voting power of those governing banks and move their backing to a governing bank that they agree with (or create their own)?  Can the public choose to ignore the decisions of the governing banks and compel their own rules?

There are twelve governing banks with voting interest in the Federal Reserve system. Only 10 central mining pools in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3vn0go/photo_on_scaling_bitcoin_stage_people/