Topic: Can there be some Bitcoin Central Agency in future? - page 2. (Read 521 times)

It’s highly unlikely for a centralized body to materialize within bitcoin’s ecosystem. Besides, what’s the centralized body going to do in a decentralized currency anyway? It’s not as if they would be able to mediate in important talks in the community and act as a representative whenever bitcoin is mentioned. At best, they would only be a puppet/used as a political tool for those who want to further their interest with bitcoin and nothing else.

There are also some positive side in having a centralized agency but for some very important reason it defeats the vision of Satoshi Nakamoto when he created bitcoin. Even though there are many conflicting ideas pertaining what bitcoin needs to be and how to settle problems in the code that leads to many forks, I still believe that bitcoin should remain as a decentralized digital currency. Removing the decentralized feature of bitcoin is not an option but rather we should look for other alternatives to settle the problems.

Bitcoin is no longer entirely decentralized thanks to the introduction of kyc by various exchanges, that part has already been penetrated, and thanks to too many insecurities surrounding btc while doing any transactions, the possibilty of getting scammed, people don't trust each other enough to engage in p2p without an escrow, or if you are still not comfortable go to an exchange, submit your data and transact,
Only few number of people patronize decentralized exchanges around, so btc is already some how centralized, only a matter of time before something close to a btc central agency is introduced, many are yawning for regulations because of the growing number of scams around, who knows what will happen.

Going back to central agencies will be going back to Square One, destroying what Bitcoin has achieved all these 10 years.  If anyone wants a central agency, might as well go to your central bank and get fiat instead.  One huge advantage of Bitcoin is that it is decentralised.

Having some Bitcoin Central Agency will just remove the true purpose of bitcoin which is decentralization.
Bitcoin is created to protect its users and it removes the need of having a third party when having a transaction, if this will be implemented or been created in the future, its purpose will be useless

• No one is going to feel safe under the authority and control of a few people even if these people are saints. When are we to realize this?
• A Central Agency for a decentralized system is funny and amusing as it is extremely ludicrous.

Enough has been said against this idea.


Absolutely! It is better to leave the proper authorities to do their job. After all, Bitcoin was never created to solve scams. It does not have any legal representation. Neither does it have the capacity and power to run after those and bring them to justice.

I think it would be beneficial if it would be able to regulate and implement policies to existing exchanges and declare international standards for security and such before an enterprise opens up an exchange. This is to prevent thefts, scams, etc.

Having a central agency does not necessarily mean the system would be centralized. The supply/demand and block generation, as well as trades are still decentralized and controlled by the traders. I don't see a problem here. And also, it does not mean it would collect every single address owner and his details. It's just to have someone responsible to exchanges with unsecure platforms.

This is much more beneficial to crypto in general since most of the scams come from altcoins and various crypto-related projects.

Sorry to say bitcoin central agency is never going to exist. Because problems that occur due to scammers must be overcome each person is not an agency that interferes, scammers can occur because of their own mistakes in doing analysis and decision making. If it is forced there will be a central agency bitcoin, bitcoin will no longer change decentralization. Which brings freedom to its users, because we can control the bitcoin that we have. It's not a good idea to deal with scammers by creating a bitcoin central agency, there are many other ways to overcome problems related to scammers.

even if it was felt necessary, but I don't think there will ever be a Bitcoin Central Agency. So far, bitcoin is a digital asset that is independent
of all transactions are the responsibility of the owner. if indeed there are people or groups who are moved to build the Bitcoin Central Agency
I really appreciate.

It wouldn't be the real thing, if Bitcoin ever became centralised, it'll become the exact thing it tried to fix.

That's true - I couldn't see them getting a lot of legal power, and there's no need for a new arbitrator system/company.

There also hasn't been enough crimes that have been committed with Bitcoin to justify opening a new court just for it, we already have the various forms of law and Bitcoin related disputes would probably just be civil or criminal suits depending on the intensity.

An entity like this wouldn't have any real legal authority. It would just be like an arbitrator and parties would need to agree to arbitration.

I'm not sure that's necessary. There are already plenty of established arbitrators out there, not to mention both civil and criminal courts to deal with legal disputes, fraud, etc.

Being protected by some central agency obviously defeats the purpose of bitcoin which is decentralization. As if a central agency can do about the scams that are happening today, It will be hard for them to find who's the culprit and we all know that bitcoin transactions are irreversible that's why they can't do anything to protect the users of bitcoin. It's better to tighten up your own security for your own good. Banks are centralized thats why it can be protected by some agency and bitcoin's purposed is to be opposite to them. Transacting anonymously and being decentralized is one of the main features of bitcoin.

Whenever and if that ever happens, it'll be the end of bitcoin for us and we'll likely lose a lot of support for the coin since it's core philosophy, decentralisation will be changed then.

Bitcoin was made to help decentralise things and give the people more power, if that's removed there's no point to it, so it'll never happen.

We don't need a central authority in the bitcoin community to stop scammers. I think that's in our hands, you should know who you are dealing with when buying things with bitcoin. You are supposed to be super smart when using bitcoin by knowing the bitcoin transactions are irreversible. You have to trust your business partner first.

Lucky for that Central Agency if they can stand on their without funds from the community, I don't think we all are wiling to send funds to it to live a day. I bet Bitcoin Central Agency will only scam us all as like scammers in here who just walkaway after we send $1. Anyone who wants freedom wants real freedom, if there is a central agency what good does it do to freedom? If you read the comments here, you'd understand that BTC will die once this happen.

I do not think you fully understand the technology which powers bitcoin- the blockchain technology where every transaction is reflected in a public ledger which unalterable and absolute. No person can ever tamper the information due to a number of people watching such ledger in the future.

Assuming that bitcoin were to be applied as our medium and there were to be some central agency that provides security, this totally defeats the purpose on why bitcoin was created - for decentralization. Eliminating the need for a third-party is the heart of the technology behind cryptocurrencies and that is why the government is against its implementation as a medium.

ok lets play hypothetical, for the sake of the topic creator

lets pretend ther is a country where a court simply wont even bother accepting a claim for any amount. purely because its crypto
lets presume a group of people set up their own arbitration system/tribuneral service

1. how punishable will the guilty person be. think about it. its not like he will get thrown in prison as that requires a court system
how feasible would a guilty party be forced to hand over the funds. we already know regular court systems put court orders on people to repay/compensate victims. but the guilty party simply walks out th door and doesnt come back, or at best just pays like $1 a month as a token gesture that he is following court order. so how can a independant group have any more or equal punishment powers as a court does.

i say this because even if the scammer gets identified, what power would some social group have to not only seize computer equipmnt, not only arrest the person. not only force thm to sit in arbitration/tribuneral. but to then actually get punished.
all i s happening is a knock at the door and the guy laughing in their face or getting a piece of paper demanding they attend a tribuneral and the guy saying, well that will make nice spare toilet paper

2. who is going to pay for the stuff involved with handling the scmmer just to get him to appear at tribuneral. remember it actually costs people money to have an office, staff it, write out appointment letters. sit as judge/jury. before the case is even heard. so who's paying upfront costs.
i say this because traditional courts are coverd upfront by government budgets and then compensation/court fee's win or lose come from the attendee's later to reimburse the courts. but in a hypothtical where a government legal system does not accept bitcoin. there wont be government assistance. thus victims will most definetly have to pay more upfront,

..
but anyway. its just much better to not hand world changing amounts to strangers (prevention better than remedy)

I don't think that such thing can really happen, because the whole point of using bitcoin and what is based on is decentralization and creating an agency or something to control and centralize it is defying that idea, scams and other things happen because people are being stupid and uneducated, if you lose your money investing in some shady website that is your fault and no one else, bitcoin is secure and independent and odes not need any regulation due to its nature and how the blockchain works.

I think Bitcoin will need a control unit for security gaps and scams before the problems reach critical levels. I think a system that will not disarray Bitcoin's structure can be developed to solve these problems in the future.

actually courts dont have a list of items that cant be judged on, they simply dont appreciate judging cases where the value of the item in question is not worthy of the court costs.
which as we both agree is the same fiat situations. scammers get away not because courts dont recognise an asset, but because the value stoln is not worthy of following up with, which a victim with court costs, lawyer costs, travel costs and days off work costs deem not worth it. and its these things scammers pray on as their get out of jail free card. not pray for courts ignorance of asset ownership laws or supposed btc banned from court as you seem to imply. just simple dont steal too much to risk a victim pursuing.

alot of people claim china, japan, africa, thailand, south america and many more are hesitant. yet there have ben bitcoin related court cases in those countries.

either way. fiat or bitcoin its still the same problem. knowing the recipient, having value stolen worthy of following up, proof you the victim are not just chargeback scamming. are things that cause issues in the legal system where a fair trial may not go a victims way.

but here is a solution to avoid being defrauded
1. dont give money to strangers.
would you stand in the middle of town and just hand a suitcase of money to a random passer by and say here you go, have this, but i want it back in full in 1 month... hoping they will just turn up.
2. know your recipient. if your giving funds to someone and you know you will want it back and its life changing amounts. find out about them. yea ok if its grocery value amounts dont worry so much, but if its a months rent or a lambo amount dont be so dumb trusting
3. in short if you dont know enough about someone to slap them with a wet fish should they wrong you. then you should slap yourself