Topic: Explain me Like I'm 5 why Bitcoin is decentralized - page 3. (Read 3971 times)

Think as Bitcoin like a internet protocoll. Everybody use the HTTP, but noone is forced too. You can use another one, if you like. You can use your own eletric socket.

Maybe a good analogy is language and the publisher dictionaries. When the publisher will offer an updated version where "one" means "two", does that chance the meaning of the word "one", when everybody disagrees? No. The publisher can just make minor changes with community consensus.

Hope, that helps. I was struggeling with that topic for a while, too

Using the software is voting for the changes. Participating in a pool is voting for the pools actions.

The developers may make the changes, but those changes are public and reviewed by others. Not everybody has to review every change. The point is that everybody could review every change. And if there is something wrong in that change that person can point it out, "waking up" others to review/confirm.

Asking to explain a complex matter in a way a 5 year old could understand it is either trolling or just being lazy.

It might and It might not be ,  but just because there is no alternate solution to it , we shouldn't assume it is flawless.
I myself don't see a solution for it right now , and until this moment I am happy how things went , but this doesn't matter things will be like that forever.

You know , when all forms of government changed or arise they all looked so good on paper and they indeed were so in the beginning, just to fail miserably in the end. Time will tell.

The question to answer is whether "there is a better way" to handle such a problem?

niothor, thanks for explaining my point!

Of course , and i never said it wasn't but , the point is that a group made those decisions , and that the next time they could make the wrong one.

Also , i'm aware that there is no way that they could have organized a vote from the entire community , and i don't see it happening in the future ,  so the devs will have to make the decision that they consider the best , but that sounds just like a central government on paper , right?

And surely you'd have to agree that "falling back to the previous version" was the correct way to handle things (personally I think that the fork issue was handled very effectively).

And the solution was decided by.... common we both experienced it , you certainly know where i'm pointing
If you don't agree that a few people decided for the the others (smells like a f* government) i'll bring the argument of the minimum fee , was there a vote , a consensus? I

Indeed it wasn't "forced" - basically all the pools had to "downgrade" until a solution was found (no-one was forced but the major pools all agreed that it was the best way to proceed and did so).

Well , the big pool operators and devs managed to convince the users last time there was a fork , of course , without using "force".
Or , wasn't it like that?

the only thing you need is to convince people that your code is better than the original one. It is easier of course for main developers because people trust them but it does not mean you can't try to do something else.

The devs cannot force anyone to upgrade their software.

So it is entirely up to the users (and especially the miners) as to whether to accept an upgrade that might "alter the rules".

Any big change would cause a "fork" (meaning that txs might become invalid for a part of the network and therefore would split the network in two).

I am sure this was discussed a lot but I still don't understand.

I know the code is open and anyone can read it etc.

But for instance let's say I have an improvement to the code. It will only be accepted if the known developers will allow it - which means they have some control over it.

this is from wiki: (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths#Bitcoin_is_not_decentralized_because_the_developers_can_dictate_the_software.27s_behavior)

"Though the developers of the original Bitcoin client still exert influence over the Bitcoin community, their power to arbitrarily modify the protocol is very limited."

So even wiki admits, that the developers do have some control over it!

wiki continues:
"Since the release of Bitcoin v0.3, changes to the protocol have been minor and always in agreement with community consensus."

what is exactly this "community consensus"? who are these people? I don't remember anyone asking me if I agree for each modification they are doing to the code. Ain't I part of the community?

The truth is that all I do is download bitcoin QT and hope for the best, while there are 100 or 1000 (or any other small amount) of people
who makes the decisions for us all.

So I am asking:
1)how can one say that bitcoin is totally decentralized?
2)Where there are people there is corruption, Aren't we suppose to be worried that this limited group of people will ruin the protocol?
3)Can someone explain in a nutshell what can the developers change and what they can't change in the protocol?