Topic: Bitcoin is Centralized! - page 2. (Read 1701 times)

The situation with the changed system of decentralization of the digital currency requires serious discussion and analysis. Has anything changed in this matter we will see after the first of August. Wait is not long. Strictly speaking, in my opinion, one can not unambiguously answer that in this case it is better: centralization, in which control over the crypto currency will be implemented not by any state or group of states, but by established leaders in this digital currency, or decentralization, which borders on anarchy.

The OP post have two misunderstandings in it.

First one is that you idealise gold. Both of the assets are mined with the difference that its the bitcoin that is finite. We do not know how many gold there is to be mined. Both of those assets are being somewhat altered - there are different kind of coins, gold bars etc. etc. all of them have different price, different risks involved in buying them and such. Most of the gold is a virtual promise to pay, and those promises to pay are a subject of manipulation more than bitcoin.

Secondly, the word centralisation implies that the power distribution comes from one source. That is not true. There are many nods, many miners, and many bitcoin users. They do not agree with eachother. Just because we must come to an agreement once in a while, means that bitcoin is decentralised. Otherwise there would be no talk about the consensus, only about the orders from the above.

In my opinion its out of the state of the art creating a good governance with a exquisite decentralization standards. The fact is that when you make a revolution and destroy a goverment/ jurisdiction you have to create a new one sooner or later, the dilemma here is if your new order is better than the older one. Think about Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Venezuela or Cuba... they all made a revolution in the 20 century, they have their reasons to do that, but their outcomes are at least questionable.

Its true that some have decided to activate segwit and its centralization of bitcoin.But its a good decision which was eagerly awaited by most of bitcoin investors so that transaction fee would get reduced and bitcoin price would go more.

It could be, but it's not yet. There is time to fight for our ideals, we only need express our ideas and generate discussions, like you are doing now. It's a good beginning.
It's not easy, almost all is being centralized, in my country the government want to centralize all the transactions of fiat, in favor to them and private banks, they are obligating by law to everybody have bank accounts and make almost everyting by the banking system, their target is eliminate the cash money and ensalve people to banksters, to pay them fees, interests and more, the banks will have more money to use, without paying any interest to the real owners of that money. This brings a lot of problems, in addition to loss of privacy, freedom, property rights, and a lot of more problems.
I feel alone, because people here don't have ideals or, simply, they are dumbs. I though this community could help me to fight, but I was wrong.
I miss 2012 when I started, everybode talking about god Satoshi and their ideals, but, now, money is the god and I am the atheist in middle of this church.

I guess you don't understand what "decentralized" means, cryptocurrencies are all about consensus and open source - if you don't like the current network, you can always make your own fork with your own rules and see if other people will like it. Current majority of Bitcoin users supports Core, so it's not a problem if they have some influence. Also, it's not like developers have some master key to Bitcoin, they can't do anything to existing blockchain, no one can, they can only release new versions, and if people will not agree with it, they simply won't use it.

Recent interest in new forms of money such as bitcoin has arisen rather naturally from the explosion of economic activity that is closely associated, at least in popular accounts, with advances in information technology and the Internet. If we looked at from a purely technological point of view there is much to be excited about, both in terms of new supply-side innovations capable of delivering most if not all of money’s primary functions and – maybe more importantly – on the demand side, where the full use of technology’s potential will likely require the introduction of new payment systems which I believe is "CENTRALIZED". Without losing sight of the fact that technological advances are highly contingent on significant economic, social and governance changes, it is
helpful to consider what the new tools and techniques might be.

its just that at some point in time (for the reasons that i have not yet figured out) people forgot that a change no matter how small and no matter if it is called soft, hard, warm, ... should reach a consensus!

we were on a very good track not so long ago. if you read the SegWit proposal it is well though, well planned, it needs >95% support from miners then it needs node activation and then lock in and all that.

and so far all the changes have been happening like this. with a set % support, then nodes activation and lock in and ....

but this was ignored and forgotten at some point.

however this has nothing to do with "decentralization" bitcoin is still decentralized. it is just filled with people who forgot to educate themselves and came in only to make profit.

Sad. It turned out that the decentralization of bitcoin is only a myth. All were hostages of the situation. Maybe this will be a lesson for all and bitcoin will avoid such mistakes in the future. And now we can only wait and observe the situation.

I can understand the frustration and you won't be alone to echo such sentiments, the problem is there is a vast amount of rumors about August 1st, that now no one really understands or like I say have gone beyond the stage where they want to understand. I yet believe come August 1st Bitcoin will be decentralized, let's hope they find a favorable solution.

With the Segwit vs Segwit 2x debate, I have come to realize that there's is an attempt to hijack control of bitcoin. To me thats what Aug 1st is all about, POWER. Its really sad that we have come to this. Time will tell which team will come out victorious.

Yes, I do not believe it is decentralized. Bitcoin's anarchist days are long gone.
I used to believe that Bitcoin was the gold of the modern age. That is to say, gold is seen today as a means of storing wealth, not as a means of shopping together with the invention of money; Both by people and by central banks.
In modern times, I thought that bitcoin, a digital value based on hash power, could be seen as a means of storing wealth.

But,
A thought: the gold is a certain element in the periodic table. Throughout the ages, people have tried to make gold with alchemy, though technology has not progressed so far. The only way to get gold is mining.

Bitcoin is not. As a result, it continues to be developed by a software and core team. So after they come out, they can say that bitcoin is changed from now on. Hard fork, soft fork, segwit 1,2,3,4,5 can do everything. The bitcoin in your hand can also be split into 10 forks. Contrary to gold, they can give bitcoin any shape as they wish. Powerful states and corporations, rich people, deep powers, who can control and manipulate the world by affecting the world as if they are asking the developers of the bitch.

Bitcoin core is not in one place, but I seem to hear you say it is scattered. After all, who is more likely to have the power of mining and bitcoin if he can not afford it?

Is Bitcoin a decentralized system? On the contrary, it is necessary to think about what will evolve as a central system in which your wealth is governed.