Topic: Decentralized, but very slow adoption OR centralized, but mass adoption happened - page 3. (Read 1570 times)

I chose decentralized as well. If bitcoin became centralized, then it would be easy to corrupt and pervert it to the point that it would be as worthless as fiat is. The day bitcoin becomes centralized will be the day I look for something else that is decentralized to abandon it for.

Decentralized is the key word. We cannot take it other way, it doesn't matter how much time adoption will take.

Faster things are brought in the faster they usually die or miss some glaring red flags that get exploited to death.
Would rather see slow adoption but I am not to keen on handing aspects of bitcoin to any government to regulate and tax.
So slower the better and would rather run bitcoin into uncharted waters than stifle and snuff it out with greedy banks sticking their fingers in the pot.

lol delaying freedom of choice with words like year development and year grace period.. is not cautious security.. but delay/avoidance tactic to then push through their own rules that doesnt even need 6000 nodes to upgrade/consent to, and activated in under a year

analogy:
"we dont want to get into a car to go to the shop, so we think it will take 2 days to walk it and avoid car crashes.. but we want to invent a motorbike with an invisible side-car and will get to the shops in one day"

core is centralized. (even you admit they are a powerful team)
core is centralized. (a dozen paid coders and 90+ spell checkers doesnt make them decentralized)

much like UK parliament where 650 MP's live in different towns but make decisions together, is not decentralized
much like US government where senators live in different towns but make decisions together, is not decentralized
but core has become the prime minister/president that can sway the debate in their direction, veto and disregard.

in short..
if your are defending the power a group has about the rules.. its not decentralized.
every group should be on the same level in regards to the consensus

as for the social preference of which implementation. then that is not about the rules, but about the function, speed, errors, GUI interface and openness of each team. (total different argument to the consensus mechanism)

The choice is very easy for me,I voted decentralized of course and I don't care how slow the adoption will be.Anything else is against Bitcoin philosophy,If one day Bitcoin becomes centralized then it will die for sure and everyone who uses it will abandon it and move to another cryptocurrency.
 

Obviously we must choose decentralized and slow adoption. What use does Bitcoin have if the network becomes centralized? This is why we must keep supporting Core. They are conservative, the progress is rather slow but it is solid and well thought, no improvisation and keeping the network decentralized is the priority.

thanks to blythe masters for helping out the bank of england and bank of india with their next generation RTGS platform,
the centralised faster payment service based on cryptocurrency technology is now covered for the mass adoption category of this topic
(there is sarcasm in the thanks)

lets keep bitcoin as an alternative/opposing option to the way of the banks, where there are no barriers to entry.
lets keep it decentralized and lets keep it doing what its supposed to.
it takes time to teach people the difference between money(subcategory of currency that is centrally controlled) and currency(individually valued and traded), so logically it will be a slow adoption process.

even with slow adoption, we still need to increase the capacity buffer to accommodate a growing adoption,without trying to delay such growth to stifle bitcoins utility.

but those wanting fast adoption only care about fiat. so much so they are willing to centralize bitcoin using middlemen authorisation (multisigs) purely for short term FIAT profit so they can run back to FIAT.

those people dont understand money or understand the real need for bitcoin and if they want fast adoption(purely for profit) then they need to be advised to go play with some penny stocks or an altcoin

Recently we saw some country/city have legalize bitcoin which means could accelerate bitcoin adoption, let merchants accept bitcoin and let people use bitcoin without worry.
But, we also know it means bitcoin slowly become centralized because regulation, user verification, taxes and eliminate anonymous service as well.

So, which one is better, decentralized, but very slow adoption OR centralized, but mass adoption happened? To be honest, i don't know which one is better

Edit : I also interested to hear opinion of those who vote "Centralized, but mass adoption happened" and "I don't care"