Topic: Does Satoshis' absence make bitcoin truly decentralized? - page 4. (Read 718 times)

Well said, and agreed.

i don't see it that way. specially when it comes to an already centralized altcoin such as Ethereum. Vitalik came and created ETH and used it to make millions of dollars with its premine and pump and dumps. he clearly knows that the system has a lot of flaws in it some of which can not be fixed at all. and the system is doomed to fail eventually in the long run. this to me seems like he doesn't want to be around when that happens!

In the article, Vitalek Buletin gives ethereum the confidence to be more developed, even though without it this should be better. Seeing this situation, surely the community is able to put ethereum better. I think it will continue to run well and have a safe value.

yes it makes sense, when the crypto founder is absent, making the coin does not have a founder or who has the number 1 authority to control the coin.

Vitaleek Bulletin didn't quite 'express his intention', he: 1- acknowledged that at some point he will take the back seat, 2- pointed out that network can already function without him.

You made it sound like he's about to quit, which isn't the case.


Presence or absence of creator has nothing to do with decentralisation and/or legitimacy.

It was his contribution to decentralisation. That does not mean it automatically prevents some other centralising influence arriving. It does set a precedent though and something for other people to look and commit to.

It's a tad tragic how little effort is put towards it elsewhere to the extent now that if you want a Binance listing you have to provide some coin contact number in case of problems. That means Bitcoin would not be able to get on Binance these days.

Although creators play an important role in the life of each cryptocurrency, not only creators can influence them. Each major owner of a cryptocurrency can raise the hype in the media to their advantage. The market is very receptive to the news.

satoshi left because he didnt want to be a point of refernce/decision. he wanted consensus to decide.

but bitcoin core replaced it and has been the thing people point to as the CORE, reference, decision, roadmap, moderated proposal route for all things bitcoin network

having mandated upgrades and moderation and treating other client software as the enemy that needs to be rekt or distorted as enemy until the only option is to altcoin those other clients off the network.. then its not decentralised.
claiming there are other full nodes is flimsy at best as they just blindly follow core

we need to get back to a level playing field where multiple pieces of full node full validating full archival software all have equal level as core.

core, if it wants to be a reference client should only run current rules. and then let the community separately on their own have their own proposals. where they communicate to each other and if a feature is good and wanted then all the versions add it. and the feature gets activated when the community of various versions all have consensus.

core need to back off with the monarchy mindset. all the core devs should have their own releases and all contribute to what the community want. not a small pool of devs who demand users blindly follow one roadmap and treat anything else as a bad actor.

if some feature/software is bad, people just dont run it. simple. but to campaign that there should only be one and anything has to follow.. is not decentralised.

core should be P-1 not p+1 (p=proposal). you know where cor is just the blue print of basic design. and others then build ontop separately

Ethereum founder Vitalek Buletin recently expressed his intention to step back from the helms as he believes the protocol can now run spontaneously without his presence, https://dailyhodl.com/2018/10/05/vitalik-buterin-preparing-to-detach-himself-from-ethereum-says-platform-can-run-without-him/

I feel the absence of the creator makes the system truly decentralized and it can't be regarded as a financial pyramid.
Satoshi as the creator could have serious effect on the bitcoin market if he wasn't anonymous. His catching a cold and being filmed at the clinic could easily spark panic and FUD.
Now the community are the ones who control the market and support the technology.