Topic: Bitcoin is not decentralized (Read 306 times)

Binance was about to ruin it and they wanted to do it but they couldn't do it obviously, and though it's possible to gain control of the blockchain if you acquire 51% of the total mining power, it's not a joke to be able to achieve that especially with how many people and companies are mining these days, the difficulty to gain that much mining power is too high and it would cost too much money for someone to do that, and even after that, one cannot really have access to anyone's wallets but they can only have access to incoming and outgoing transactions.

And Bitcoin is called decentralized because it was created and is running independently, there is no one that can make any changes to the original blockchain or control the coins in circulation or those that are mined, so basically, it is decentralized, and all that you say are just possibilities with no actual outcome seen so far.

Yes, maybe that's your opinion on bitcoin, like many people call gambling, bitcoin is a Ponzi...but no matter what anyone says, bitcoin is still bitcoin, it's still decentralized and an investment, a currency...it all depends on how each person uses it for their purpose. We don't care what you think about bitcoin, what we care about is bitcoin is giving us freedom, we have full control over our assets without having to ask permission no one. That's what bitcoin gives us, and we need it.

Says who? You?
What if I say that your opinion does not matter here? Because we all know what Bitcoin is and what it can be in the future. Just saying that it is not decentralized does not make it centralized. Just because some people own a huge amount of Bitcoin does not mean that they have full control over the market. Or they can alter the main source. No one can do it.

What do you want to indicate by saying decentralized? If we are talking about the same "decentralize" then you are wrong. Decentralized means, no one has control over it. It is not run by any centralized organization.
If you look at it now and do some research on your own, you would know it. Those points that you have talked about in your post, seem like FUD. It does not make Bitcoin centralized. That is the truth. You said it already. It's an event from 2019. Can't you see the current market and where it was? Did that affect the market that much? Maybe, but temporality. And again, it did not make Bitcoin centralized.

binance was not about to nor wanted..
in the space of 8 hours of social drama 4 years ago binance said it was approached by other groups of services and pools asking binance does binance want to re-org.. binance released a periscope video just saying others asked him if they should help.. so not his idea..
.. 8 hours later he made another tweet saying he has no plans to do it as it can cause many bad effects..

so even though its been 4 years since that single afternoon of non events, just social gossiping/drama.. it seems people here today still thought it was a thing.. its not. was not

if you however do want to talk about some real centralisation. look at the CORE of the protocol. they named their brand that for a centralist reason. and any other node brand trying to offer the same features(protocol change proposals) will get REKT

do some better research.

also mining pools do not code the rules/protocol, they follow the rules or get blocks rejected. they have been found to have their blocks rejected many times if they even tried to go against the code.. so if you wish to look at the centralisation. look who actually makes the code changes(has the real power)

binance and mining pools do not write the code nor have they done reorgs.. but one group has rejected block, mandated changes to the protocol a few times now


actual events were that DCG were working WITH core to get segwit activated using a flag event to get segwit active with a empty promise of a 2x base block increase ['sometime'] later. their flag event did activate segwit. so their campaign worked as core and DCG wanted. but it was the 2x part that was never wrote into code at the time and has since never been wrote into code
yes blockstream(cores sponsors) was funded by DCG

and to add more detail to that drama. the other pretend opposition to cores segwit was bloq. whom DCG also has in its portfolio..

You said there are many other points but you only brought up two and one of them never even materialized. The idea was so unpopular that CZ quickly abandoned it. He knew there wasn't enough consensus. The facts actually prove that Bitcoin is indeed decentralized.

Foundry is owned by DCG which already tried to change Bitcoin's consensus rules with Segwit2x. That didn't turn out to well for them thus reinforcing Bitcoin's decentralization.

I would definitely have to agree with Kevin, prove it is centralized m8. These claims you made were about binance and chip mixers only has so much effect on the crypto market as a whole, but they don't cause Bitcoin to be deemed a centralized currency in any way.

Bitcoin is decentralized by default, if you are looking for who to blame, then talk or hate on how people don't use Bitcoin as a decentralized digital currency that it is, people or let me say adopters are the one making Bitcoin look less like a decentralized asset, they entrust their Bitcoin to fellow big centralized companies because they don't know how to keep their coins safe or they don't understand what real decentralization looks like.

Bitcoin was never meant to be sent to any centralize exchange in the first place, imagine if every adopters and traders say no to centralized exchange, those companies will feel the hit themselves because Bitcoin is the main asset that makes them successful the most.

Quit hating and all your point are all wrong, you just miss the real fact what happened then and I am glad that few people already replied with the real answers.

If bitcoin is not decentralized, I wonder why the government so far can't figure out how to control it, they are still struggling to find a way to block and ban it. Why did they spend so much time and effort spreading lies about bitcoin to keep people away from it? If not decentralized, they just need to control and manipulate it as they want, isn't that done?

Bitcoin is decentralized.

The case that happened to Binance in 2019 could cause the price to fall because Binance is a large exchange that has a large number of transactions every day so when Binance was hacked and lost 7000 BTC at that time it made the world surprised.
For me it has nothing to do with Bitcoin decentralization.

Bitcoin hacking cases are not easy work for hackers.

Don't immediately generalize all things that are not necessarily connected.

Here's a snippet about the Binance incident in 2019 that lost 7000 Bitcoin;

I would like to know how you can come to that conclusion, when Binance are only one entity to the whole picture? The moment when you have a technology that are spread over multiple entities and not controlled by a central entity, then we call it decentralized.

In any way, even if one large mining pool decides to re-organize blocks, then all other miners must decide if they want to accept those changes... and if they do not do that, then they will run on a separate fork. 

1.Well, Binance didn't ruin the crypto market, because nobody would allow them to "reorg blocks to recover hacked BTC".
Using a failed example from 4 years ago doesn't prove that Bitcoin isn't decentralized.
2.The debate about Bitcoin being not decentralized because mining power is concentrated a bunch of big companies exists for years.
The "51% attack" theory doesn't make sense because the attacker would simply waste too much resources and gain nothing in return.
3.I agree that BTC mixers are centralized, but nobody is forcing anyone to use them. If you want anonymity, just use Monero. Bitcoin isn't supposed to be 100% anonymous.

I believe it would be beneficial for you to familiarize yourself with the concept of decentralization. You can easily find information on it by conducting a simple Google search. In the context of Bitcoin, decentralization refers to the fact that it is not governed by any central authority. Instead, it is controlled by individuals who can run nodes to keep the Bitcoin network operational. However, it's important to note that decentralization does not necessarily imply anonymity. All transactions and records are permanently stored on the blockchain. While centralized exchanges like Binance have the ability to freeze funds, this does not negate the decentralized nature of Bitcoin

Op do really understand the concept of decentralization? Decentralization means, the powers are shared among other people therefore, everyone control their territory or domain and this the educational aspect of the concept If may correct. And that gave birth to the tearm in Cryptocurrency that everyone who own bitcoin control it from their own wall and nobody control the coins for them. Nobody can freeze my coins except, and nobody can send my bitcoin except me. And that is the meaning of the decentralization in the field of Cryptocurrency. So all those things you mentioned there I see it as adulterated.

What facts are we talking about here? Because as far as I can see, you haven't mentioned any yet.

Yes we will remain sticking to it but while knowing facts.

Chipmixer was a sad event, and I agree with the point that mixers record the data and more possibly that data can be misused as well, I think it doesn't mean Bitcoin is centralized, for the Binance went you are talking about is a glimpse of old memory in the current timeline you can actually feel much safe with Bitcoin rather than any other asset. I think it's enough to convince anyone to stick to it.

How will you buy them from the dex using other token? How you get the other token?

When you need to cashout and buy valuable stuff you will be forced to reveal some reserves to prove this is a clean money

The incident you referenced with Binance in 2019 was a plan to rearrange the blockchain in order to recoup monies that had been stolen. However, the Bitcoin community, which consists of miners, developers, and users, strongly opposed this plan. In the end, the plan was shelved, and the blockchain was left alone. The community resisted any attempt to centralised control, demonstrating the robustness of Bitcoin's decentralised character.


It is true that there is concern about the concentration of mining power due to the possibility of some mining firms, such as Foundry, attaining a substantial market share. It's crucial to remember that the Bitcoin network is still decentralised because mining power is shared among numerous users all over the world. There are concerns associated with mining concentration, including as the possibility of collusion or 51% attacks, however ongoing efforts are made to encourage decentralisation and guarantee the network's security.

Decentralization in Bitcoin refers to the fact that no single entity or group has complete control over the network. It relies on a distributed network of nodes, where each participant has a copy of the blockchain and contributes to the consensus mechanism. This decentralized structure makes it difficult for any single entity to manipulate or control the system.

So Bitcoin is not decentralised because of the few things you said below? Wow. First, you know that it's an aguable fact that the founder of Bitcoin has not yet been known; second, you know that he did not place the control of Bitcoin in the hands of one man; third, you know that when I carry out just a normal P2P transaction on my self-contained wallet, my identity is never revealed to anyone; and fourth, you know that I could still carry out my Bitcoin interaction on some DEX without having my identity revealed.

Let me ask you this question: if I have like 5 Bitcoin in a hardware wallet and I bought those Bitcoin from a DEX, tell me who will know that it's Dr. Bitcoin Strange that owns those coins?

But if I have like $20,000 in my bank account with all my identities registered on that account, I hope you know that every one of the bankers can identify my account balance and also know that I own the account.

So, tell me why Bitcoin is not decentralised. Just answer it yourself.



Cheers 🥂, Dr.Bitcoin_Strange 👺👺

Do you ever take a moment to actually read the words that are coming out of your keyboard? Even if they didn't, they somehow have this incredible power to do it anyway! Does that sound logical to you?

The funny thing is, even with all their power, they could not pull it off! And that right there is solid proof that Bitcoin is as decentralized as it gets.

Also, since you claim to be telling the facts, show me proof that ChipMixer was logging user data. (Not that it has anything to do with Bitcoin decentralization).

Eh? So now bitcoin, in your opinion, is not decentralized because someone wanted to do something that didn't even accomplish? Of course no one would have ever followed Binance's proposal, it was just stupid and it was their problem, I don't understand how you can base your statement on something that never happened, everybody can say whatever they want.

I am not agree with you. Bitcoin is not what you want to prove. It is a digital decentralized currency. But many consider it a centralized currency due to lack of complete knowledge. Bitcoin works through a decentralized network, it's name as the blockchain. Where transactions are distributed by mining and verified by the network. Blockchain technology is currently the most decentralized network security related technology which makes it more trustworthy to people.

I do not agree with the way you have presented decentralization in Bitcoin. You cannot say that Bitcoin is not decentralized, you could have said absolute decentralization cannot be achieved in Bitcoin. I agree with all your facts and that being said it means that Bitcoin requires substantial power to be compromised. That should be taken as a strength rather than a weakness, its network resilience, and security makes it more trustable than any other so called decentralized network.

That's partially correct. Sure, if some miners decide to increase the block size limit, the community (which is the rest of the users) can deny that, and make their chain worthless, and therefore any hash spent on it. But, if the miners (pools to be precise) decide to execute a 51% attack, and change the past transactions, there is really nothing the community can do. The whole point of Bitcoin relies on the disincentive of this execution.

I would like to hear from you the facts confirming what has been said.

I didn't understand, so binance did what it intended or not?

As far as I know, they failed to ruin the market, as a result. Then how can they be blamed for something they didn't do?

I guess people's experiences about bitcoin security and partial decentralization and Bitcoin is not decentralized are completely different things. I think you are confusing soft with warm.

More details here, please. We will listen to you carefully.

A curious allegory, but I did not catch the logical connection between bitcoin and mixers in the context of the topic under discussion.

I think you got it wrong. Binance wanted to reorg but it never happened. A 51% attack can happen but it never happened. Bitcoin has enough enemies who’d drool over ruining BTC by attacking it, but realistically this can’t happen.

Bitcoin’s more decentralized than ever. If somehow something happens with the miners and they decide to conquer and change BTC, Bitcoin is a community and if the community doesn’t agree it just won’t happen - or it’ll happen on a separate chain while we continue using the old BTC as it used to be.

Prove BTC is centralized.

Brilliant as always and exactly what I want to say. People should know that stuff are possible whether it's gonna happen or not. Thanks for passing by!

Bitcoin is decentralized, BUT as with anything you can always find something that looks bad.

Nobody is really worried about Foundry. Why? Foundry is not stupid, they know that once their hashrate goes above a certain point the optics will be bad and that could negatively affect the price of BTC and they don't want that. Look at what happened to F2 when they got to 50%

As for the 7TB of chipmixer. We don't know what was there and why. It was multiple servers and if they were running core that is 500GB+ per box.
And, as everyone knows but keeps forgetting. There is deleted files and securely erased files. If he created a file and then removed it when the transaction was complete as we well know that file IS recoverable until it is securely wiped from the drive. SSDs are even worse since they try to do wear leveling so cells may not be written over until the entire drive has been passed over.

Some exchanges not wanting to take some coins? Yes, that sucks but they are private businesses and can do as they wish. There are enough places that do not care and the P2P and DEX options are also out there.

-Dave

Exactly what I said. Are you using AI?

Why don't you help me in the bluewallet thread 

This is something that keeps us from saying "wow" on a topic like this because different people have different ways of interpreting what they see and what they feel.
If you feel Bitcoin is not decentralized by your own interpretation, don't force people to convince your interpretation to be correct.

By definition, Bitcoin decentralization has been explained clearly and the mixer function is also very clear, making it easier for you to find out what it is all about.

"Wanted to" and "accomplished" are two very different things.  If they had been successful in doing that, then yes, that would demonstrate Bitcoin wasn't decentralised.  But it didn't happen.  The network of fully independent users easily prevented it.  There was never any risk of it actually going ahead.  No single entity is in a position to force through a change like that.



Still yet to see any detail of what the seized data actually was.  Could have been multiple copies of the blockchain for all we know.  

Mixers were used as an example that as long as major parts is under hu.an control then its not decentralized

They'll know when you'll use toxic change as input in a transaction. The people whom you exchanged with can de-anonymize the inputs.

This is an entirely different statement to make. Obviously, the concern ChipMixer holds logs exists since day 1. There's nothing revealed to us, after it got shut down. They have no power if they wish to, as you say, because there is no evidence they were keeping logs. If they did keep logs, then yeah, there would be concern the feds have accessed them, but there's no such thing known.

I came across a post on reddit that talked about a website by doge coin developer called arewedecentralizedyet.com which for reasons I know nothing about have been removed but some comments like I was expecting something of this nature when I saw the post title, but here am seeing  mixer and decentralization. There exist centralized and decentralized mixers and a company able to collect customers data doesn't mean Bitcoin isn't decentralized.
Are you going to also point out that since there exist centralized exchange then Bitcoin is centralized?
Mixers doesn't equal decentralization nor is it compulsory to secure ones Bitcoin.

I agree with you mate and if bitcoin  wasn't decentralized,  then I believe  it would have been compromised and due to binance popularity and dominance in the cryptocurrency, .any other people confuse binance  and cz as the owner of every other cryptocurrency and determinant of bitcoin and cryptocurrency prices.
Op, I believe  if there was a way to get bitcoin compromised,  then the top government officials  would have gladly invested in such project but unfortunately I don't think they can and even if they can, then it will definitely  not be now.

Binance  is a third-party  and the fact that they wanted to investigate an attack should  solely be because the transaction was still within their reach and the truth  is that except from using third parties, no one is in charge of your hodlings except the holder and it seems your attack is more on mixers and you should talk to them and not attack bitcoin  in general.

Even if they didn't this concern means they have the power to it if they wish so the issue remains whether chip did that or not

What's the relation between decentralization and mixer?

If you use decentralized exchange, use non custodial wallet especially you're run full node, and avoid to link your Bitcoin or address in everywhere, how someone can know you're holding Bitcoin? no one know and you don't have to use mixer.

There's no threat for mining company who's control big hashrate, they can't perform 51% attack.

And I want a billion dollars, but I can't have them without doing the work.

Lol, this misinformation has to sometime stop. We know nothing apart from ChipMixer holding 7 TB of data. The feds have revealed absolutely no information related to clients' data, except from the part that it included private keys. The rest of the data could be anything, and as the storage is concerned, seven terabytes are mountainously more than needed to keep logs.

Hater
Lover
Belief
Disbelief
Doesn't apply to what I say only facts
What you said I did say it already it adds another layer making it harder but at the end its not that decentralized just stronger system

Are you that hater? No ones gonna believed you just because you pointed out some issues. If hacked coins were compromised, the issuer of bitcoin cant do anything about it due to decentralization. Means they cant change or alter the effects of it. Just because some third party getting headlines or got some problem with their bitcoin holding doesnt mean its bitcoin fault. No one can conyrol the outcome of each holdings of everyone only but yourself.

Yes, bitcoin is not decentralized.

1- as you may have seen binance was about to ruin the whole crypto market in 2019 when they wanted to reorg blocks to recover a hacked 7,000 bitcoins.

2- a lot of people's worried about foundry market share in the mining space as it threats bitcoin security and partial decentralization

And there is many other points

In short decentralization for bitcoin is like anonymity for mixers you just add another layer of security for investments but this doesn't mean that mixers don't record your data like chipmixer did, and also it doesn't mean that bitcoin is 100% decentralized as you saw it just needs huge power to have it ruined and that is a good reason to use it

Thanks