Topic: Bitcoin being decentralised an illusion? - page 3. (Read 378 times)
The word "decentralized" never actually meant that the government or any central authority can't and won't cause any harm to Bitcoin. They surely can cause a bit of damage(as seen with the temporary drop in hash rate), but the fact is, they can't shut it down. You know why? Because Bitcoin is decentralized!
After reading some articles from https://endthefud.org/, I am still not fully convinced that Bitcoin is decentralized and without Bitcoin being decentralized, it carries little to no value.
Despite many supporters claiming that no government has control over the Bitcoin network or price (and that even if they do have control, they wouldn't hurt it due to innnovation), this seems to be proven untrue time and time again. For example, over the years, everyone labelled China threats as FUD and that they would never completely ban Bitcoin. Earlier this year China banned BTC mining, and over half of the entire network shut offline in the following weeks.
Also most recently with the Infrastructure Bill, the broad language used to define a “broker”, is a major blow to decentralization.
The arguments in the endthefud article don't seem to hold up. The articles claim that governments can't and won't cripple Bitcoin's decentralisation and even if they try to ban it, other governments will embrace it. While the second part is true, we're starting to see first hand that the first part is not with China turning their back to crypto. And now US and UK also starting to turn their back to crypto. If Bitcoin can be crippled with a little tax provision in a bill, is it really going to stand the test of time as being decentralised? And if it's not decentralised, what other value does it have?
Despite many supporters claiming that no government has control over the Bitcoin network or price (and that even if they do have control, they wouldn't hurt it due to innnovation), this seems to be proven untrue time and time again. For example, over the years, everyone labelled China threats as FUD and that they would never completely ban Bitcoin. Earlier this year China banned BTC mining, and over half of the entire network shut offline in the following weeks.
Also most recently with the Infrastructure Bill, the broad language used to define a “broker”, is a major blow to decentralization.
The arguments in the endthefud article don't seem to hold up. The articles claim that governments can't and won't cripple Bitcoin's decentralisation and even if they try to ban it, other governments will embrace it. While the second part is true, we're starting to see first hand that the first part is not with China turning their back to crypto. And now US and UK also starting to turn their back to crypto. If Bitcoin can be crippled with a little tax provision in a bill, is it really going to stand the test of time as being decentralised? And if it's not decentralised, what other value does it have?
You are exaggerating and yet again I will be questioning the motifs why's that.
China problems did not shut "over half of the entire network", not even half of the hash rate, if that's what you wanted to mean. (Although hash rate and network are... different concepts.)
Then "US and UK also starting to turn their back to crypto" is plain FUD and complete misinterpretation of reality. The fact they tax crypto businesses sound as acceptance to me. Yes, the tax law is not properly written and average Joe may get in trouble (financially) and that could affect decentralization on some degree, but not as big as you (or your sources) inflate it.
After reading some articles from https://endthefud.org/, I am still not fully convinced that Bitcoin is decentralized and without Bitcoin being decentralized, it carries little to no value.
Despite many supporters claiming that no government has control over the Bitcoin network or price (and that even if they do have control, they wouldn't hurt it due to innnovation), this seems to be proven untrue time and time again. For example, over the years, everyone labelled China threats as FUD and that they would never completely ban Bitcoin. Earlier this year China banned BTC mining, and over half of the entire network shut offline in the following weeks.
Also most recently with the Infrastructure Bill, the broad language used to define a “broker”, is a major blow to decentralization.
The arguments in the endthefud article don't seem to hold up. The articles claim that governments can't and won't cripple Bitcoin's decentralisation and even if they try to ban it, other governments will embrace it. While the second part is true, we're starting to see first hand that the first part is not with China turning their back to crypto. And now US and UK also starting to turn their back to crypto. If Bitcoin can be crippled with a little tax provision in a bill, is it really going to stand the test of time as being decentralised? And if it's not decentralised, what other value does it have?
Despite many supporters claiming that no government has control over the Bitcoin network or price (and that even if they do have control, they wouldn't hurt it due to innnovation), this seems to be proven untrue time and time again. For example, over the years, everyone labelled China threats as FUD and that they would never completely ban Bitcoin. Earlier this year China banned BTC mining, and over half of the entire network shut offline in the following weeks.
Also most recently with the Infrastructure Bill, the broad language used to define a “broker”, is a major blow to decentralization.
The arguments in the endthefud article don't seem to hold up. The articles claim that governments can't and won't cripple Bitcoin's decentralisation and even if they try to ban it, other governments will embrace it. While the second part is true, we're starting to see first hand that the first part is not with China turning their back to crypto. And now US and UK also starting to turn their back to crypto. If Bitcoin can be crippled with a little tax provision in a bill, is it really going to stand the test of time as being decentralised? And if it's not decentralised, what other value does it have?
Jump to: