Topic: Bitcoin is not decentralised. Proof right now. (Read 1649 times)

Why?


I don't like to ignore.

Because he is just spamming fud nonsense.  Feel free to ignore him, he clearly has no idea what the fork is or why it is being done.  His account along with some others here appears to have been created for the sole purpose of spreading fud.

As far as I know, running a node is simply having your Bitcoin Core (or XT) wallet sync and open. That's all.
As far as industrialization of mining. This was something satoshi predicted. He knew making money off bitcoin mining for the average single person with a computer would only be profitable at the beginning, and as time goes on professionals would gather to do it, so I don't see the big fuzz about this.

Don't get me wrong, I think the 20MB idea is useless and only a small patch, but staying 1MB is equally stupid (including LN, which has elements of centralization too anyway).

Why? Why you keep saying Bitcoin will be more centralized if we accept that fork?

learn to read, i said that choosing the one with only 10% is not worth it, because the one that matter is that with 90%, so at the end we will just follow what merchant and miners will choose

what i mean is that in the end you will be forced to go with what the majority will follow

That is exacly what I have been thinking... We are all splitting hairs about this, but we do not even compete with VISA/MasterCard to take a share of the market. A lot of people are saying Bitcoin will be the disruption in this field, but the technical restraints keep us from doing just that.

I wish they can wake up and smell the coffee... We cannot disrupt, if we are crippled by the restrictions in the protocol. It has to change for us to go mainstream. PERIOD.

If you have a better solution... Bring IT.

It's funny how there are 0 problems in terms of democratic decisions since the people choose the fork they want in majority, my concern is that Bitcoin seems like it will never be able to sustain enough transactions per second to be able to compete with VISA, Mastercard etc. combined.

Ha!  congrats on the non noob account.  But you either don't understand what XT is or choose to be obtuse.  If you are confused about the issue, whey we need it, and why the other devs oppose it you should look here and here.  Those are some pretty good threads.  Of course you are not going to look because your only purpose is to spread FUD.  I suspect you are even one of the money grubbing devs that is causing this problem in the first place.  Get in line and stop hurting the community with your horrible greed.

You are not the one missing the point. 

The argument is the same as arguing that potcoin or dogcoin will centralize bitcoin. These are just forks that have not been adopted as much. When the fork comes to BTC some will go one way others another. But there is no centralization in the system, Only choices. And the number of nodes means very little. It is clearly a reflection of the community increasingly using online wallets and not running a full node. 

I predict that the real $#!T storm will happen when the users who panic switch to a silly alt wake up to find that the value has drained out of their holdings. Spoiler alert! Its going to be the fault of Gavin and his shadowy government handlers. lol

What in Bitcoin is not decentralized? I seem to miss the point of all this? You will still have decentralized nodes, no matter what you choose. {Core OR XT}

The core development for Bitcoin-XT might be centralized for a while, until more developers switch sides. {But the functioning of the protocol will still be decentralized}

Let's say this does happen... Do you really think, the development team will stay small and people will not switch teams?

Bring the Popcorn, this is going to be a good show.  

I think it can also be because people dont quite understand what is actually going on. All the FUD's day in and out, but the facts are not straight

Look at this:

It's just not true for a fact. If and when the XT happens, it will have value obviously, because it will mean that 90% of the network agrees.
Since when is majority decision non valuable ? It can only be seen as such to someone with blindfold on their eye,and those who hear , but choose not to listen (like feminists .

cheers

smell that.... it's FUD! Most probably someone who sold at 160 and wants to buy in lower but realizing that it may not happen.

Well i guess you can decide to use qt fork after 90% activation split. But there's no point, because if 90% network is on other fork, u wont be able to spend them anywhere.
Also,your address on other fork will still be populated with pre'fork coins, but that you will be able to double spend them, unlikely; one fork will ignore the other.
cheers

What 10%? from what i've read is 90%. The hard fork (real fork) only will happen if 90% of nodes are on XT. And no, anyone with a computer running a node (having a Core or XT wallet opened) can vote, by simply doing that.

A user can choose either fork. The choice is his. He can send his pre-fork coins to a new address on the fork he chooses.  If there are less or no miners on his fork, the user can be a miner himself.

No, even there are only 10% miners mining on one chain, you can still use the same client as they have and use the coins on their chain. But the affected are not only miners, but also merchants and exchanges. If you want to spend/exchange your coins, the merchants and exchanges would have to support your coins too

This has always been the case for any Github oriented development. The central core dev/code reviewer have the right to review the sumitted changes and decide which change is allowed and which change should be prohibited

In theory, people can select whatever version of bitcoin client they want to use, but in practice, they don't have enough knowledge to identify and see the consequence of different implementation between different versions. In this regard they are hopelessly dependent on the enlightenment of the core devs, and when core devs run into a conflict of interest, the project will be in a deadlock

From democracy point of view, it is worse than the democracy system that we have (In today's democracy system you vote for the party you like, but in Github there is no such possibility). But still, it is better than the monetary system we have today (You can not vote the FED chairman/money supply/interest rate, but you can select a crypto currency version that you like)

Most of the bicoiners should be informed about the pros and cons of each different alternative, but that typically evolves into some very complex political debate about decentralization and scalability, they got lost eventually

And, as 2013 fork shown, a few powerful guys controlling either large amount of coins or large amount of mining hashpower can corner the blockchain if they will. In fact, Satoshi's 1 million coin could kill any chain that he think is not on the right track. So the political landscape is quite complicated

If there is a decision making system that evaluate the interest of all the involved participants, that will always bring some compromise for certain participants to reach a single decision. But if there is no such system, blockchain will fork into different directions sooner or later, a true libertarian scenario  

this is not correct, you can't choose either fork, are the miners that will choose for you, you must follow them in the end, choosing the fork with 10% consensus is useless...

Bitcoin is not decentralised enough but not centralised. Democracy is not the a objective goal of bitcoin. There is some degree of democracy if the chain forks. You can choose either fork, no one is forcing you to choose gavin's xt fork.

I don't know why people can't understand this? Perhaps people do not understand what "open-source" and "distributed network" really mean. If they did half the stupid theories around here would be instantly seen as flawed.