Topic: Does Satoshis' absence make bitcoin truly decentralized? (Read 688 times)

Every Bitcoin-derived cryptocurrency has a founder or company behind it. Therefore, these individuals affect coin very much. Based on this, it can be argued that ICO and other cryptocurrency focus more than the community has to admit.Bitcoin is completely different. When Satoshi disappeared, he left the entire Bitcoin network unchecked. No central authority can reduce the usefulness, Bitcoin is really scarce and can't change the quality without the consent of all users.

Vitalik cannot step back from Ethereum because it will have a big impact in his coin because he is not anonymous like Satoshi. That is the difference if you are known publicly. You will become the reference if the people who invest in it.

I believe that this has already been going on for a long time, because the system must really be decentralized.

Only because bitcoin has no owner, it belongs to everyone and at the same time to anyone, without it it would not be so popular

It does make sense Bitcoin could go on for decades without a central figure to look up into because the system is in place there is no dynasty to speak off, It really does make Bitcoin decentralized because of the absence of its creator it's better that he stay anonymous so he can protect his creation.

Does Satoshi even existed ? What I think is that whenever the Satoshi name will come again in the mass media or maybe he will login back into his account or maybe 1 bitcoin will be moved from his wallet then the world will go nuts because HE WILL BE BACK !

jeez ,wonder how the hell did you manage to get 5 merit with this sort of posts 
bitcoin starts to be meaningless is something totally new 

bitcoin is and was created decentralized, it cannot be made more decentralized than it is already
maybe by redistributing mining pools % to shift more towards smaller pools

The absence of Satoshin treats Bitcoin more, but Bitoin starts to be meaningless, and Bitcoin may risk a major fall.

Bitcoin is bigger than one person. We have seen something similar happen with Litecoin
when Charlie Lee stepped out of the project. Satoshi set the ball rolling and after it started
he was and still is powerless to control it.

the main moto behind bitcoin protocol is meant for decentralised nature so bitcoin is capable to run without any owner  and creator absolutely true satoshi absence is justified for bitcoin growth

The main reason why Satoshi stayed anonymous and decided not to reveal himself was so that people would not be influenced by him in anyway. You will have to admit, if he showed up who he was, any decisions taken by him will naturally given more weight by the people. Many people will think of him as the leader of bitcoin (even if he doesn't want to be the one) and this will end up eventually destroying the decentralized system of bitcoin.

I believe his absence has truly helped bitcoin so far. True and great project owners should really be anonymous. And that's the aim of cryptocurrency to give everyone freedom and security..

In order to kill cryptocurrency, Government would have arrested Satoshi Nakamoto and give him or her some allegation or order to nail Satoshi if his or her identity was known to everyone. This act also make us to fill that bitcoin is our own. Decentralization also come from that act.

I like it. This is the key to success when people control the currency. The founder of bitcoin has the right to be anonymous. He is a man like you and me.

I am sorry but what does a person has to do with a decentralized system. I get you are going with it, but there is always next of kin. In my opinion, that doesn't matter.

How does Satoshi affect Bitcoin? Or Ethereum?

If Satoshi emerged today;
1) Can he increase the number of Bitcoins?
2) Can he reduce the number of Bitcoin?
3) Can he set the price of Bitcoin himself?
4) Can he transfer the Bitcoins in our wallets to his wallets?
5) Can he change the structure of Bitcoin alone (without the community's participation)?
6) Can he destroy the blockchain network?
...

We can sort everything that can be done centrally, like this one by one. However, the existence of Vitalik or Satoshi does not harm the centerless structure.

Some may claim to have a lot of Bitcoins in hand. The LTC founder also had numerous LTCs and sold them all! The market was not badly affected.

Not exactly. Satoshi created the system and strengthened it in the market, then created a clear management and renewal structure. Then simply there was no need to control it as the system is self-sufficient. Satoshi knew what he was doing and not just left.

users didnt get a vote
only 35% of nodes were segwit. only 35% of blocks were segwit
users didnt have to change anything. they were told everything was "backward compaitble" which if you unwash the word twist is that old clients will blindly accept segwit without upgrading because segwit nodes treat the old nodes as second class(bridged/filtered nodes) the which dont 100% validate because how segwit mutates the data to strip it to a thing that blindly passes old node tests)

old nodes were not rjecting segwit. not because they loved segwit but because segwit passed them striped data to BYPASS rejection.

the actual vote was for merchants and miners
FIBRE stripped out what it didnt like before anyone got a chance to "vote"

any proper nodes that could reject core/segwit nodes would end up just getting manipulated blocks that were stripped to appear as regular old blocks with transactions that blindly pass segwit transactions in the block. or get banned off the network

meaning users had no chance

as for any pools that made blocks that would dilute cores required version flag. core via FIbre and other stuff could reject them easily... meaning the users wouldnt get them to build ontop off to cause some orphan drama... meanwhile what you think are "users" would accept anything either way due to how core BYPASSED it with the stripped block data and threats to miners/merchants


LEARN ABOUT THE BYPASS
(gmax buzzword downstream nodes..... lukeJR buzzword filtered nodes)

you need to read the wishy washy herpa durp code.. they even drew a picture to show it actually happened
..
seriously doomad you can spend forever just crying wrong because wrong. but it seems you need to read some code first and become shocked at the coercion that occured

you can keep on trying to turn a we need diversity into a franky vs doomad all you like... or you can learn about what actually happened from the source. i know you dont want to learn from me so i only offered subtle hints thus not appear as spoonfeeding you.
the data, stats, code, documentation is there. but its for you to do your research.

if not, no point you wasting your time being so defensive against diversity
i do find it funny how entangled you have become in having an opposing mindset to it while pretending you dont. but all you are doing is meandering this topic into a comedy.

........
as for the proposal scenario of EC... again your mindset is "fork core off".. thats YOU saying that
the level playing field would have had oppertinity of having enough node selection/freedom/choice where people select it. it NATURALLY achieves consensus. and nothing gets forked off
again your obsessed with things having to get forked off as the only option
(facepalm)
whomever told you its the only option. i think thats the problem you have been learning from those that are telling you a story
the reality is. if there was no true consensus. no activation would occur. if ther was true consensus. the it activates and life continues on. any node in the small minority doesnt auto fork into a new altcoin. they just get stuck unsynced at a block height lower then the rest. and treated as second class nodes

but yea in a scenario of EC getting consensus would be where core actually listened to the community and maybe done a
core v0.12.a - support EC
core v0.12.b - dont support EC

and for EC to get consensus people that love core and trust core would run v0.12.a thus EC would get consensus and still get the core dev team as their supplier
if a community didnt have consensus for EC. then EC simply wouldnt activate.
remember no other teams but the core roadmap team instigated mandatory dates and bypasses.

i know you were trying to poke a bear to set up a scenario of where EC supports would mandate activation.
 but using real consensus of a real level playing field the separate teams would come to a CONSENSUS by communicating and contributing to a whole network community of to find the middle ground where all teams find that happy g-spot where all teams can happily find pleasure from. without having to rape the network via coercion

no,Satoshi absence has nothing to do with bitcoin being decentralized
with ETH and Buterin it is not the same,although there are some similarities: both have huge coin stashes, both created the coin
but other than that bitcoin is being developed by a consensus through BIP's
and even if Satoshi (if he existed and wasn't a group of individuals who didn't want to reveal their identities) resurfaced now
I doubt he would have major impact on how the things are going, maybe only if  he sells a huge portion of his coins or reveals a critical vulnerability that cannot be patched
and that are all negative scenarios, also I think Buterin is doing the right thing too, let Etherium develop without its creator's influence will give it more chances to grow into
something better and more decentralized

In fact, the market is controlled by large coin holders. The founders also influence the course, by making changes to the code. But any developer can do this. Approval of changes in any case is adopted by a decentralized vote. This is if we are talking about a public blockchain like Ethereum.