Topic: Has Bitcoin Finally Lost Its Decentralization? (Read 1008 times)

Exactly. Most people are in it for the money. Not because they care about Bitcoin. Those who hold BTC in their own wallets (self-custody) constitute a small fraction of the network. I'd say Bitcoin is now owned by centralized exchanges and institutional investment companies. Even if miners and node operators are the ones in charge of network consensus. What use will these entities have if "Wall Street" holds most of the circulating supply?

Maybe the community go as far as forking off to a new chain? Or simply approve increasing BTC's max supply of 21m units (very unlikely)? I know other coins are faring worse (eg: Ethereum, and Solana). But I think Bitcoin can do better than that. Hopefully, Bitcoin stays true to its principles of decentralization and censorship-resistance in the long run. Otherwise, it was fun while it lasted.

^ the lemming speaks about his overlords power (of how they do not work for anyone but themselves and their self interests.(technically they work for whomevers sponsoring them to add crappy features that annoy bitcoiners))
when the devs ignore bitcoiners concerns and those critiquing them then that is where the power play evolves into communism/government
yep core have become bitcoins own government

you telling people to stop critiquing devs is a show that you want centralised power..
every insult you sling and command you make against others says more about you then it does about anyone

you know full and well the moderation control the centralised powerhouse has.. and to become a valid contributer is not a open door policy, its actually a kiss the ring and be malleable to follow the path of the moderated roadmap, else have your contributions 'Nacked'/not merged, your comments removed and your ability to participate on a area of the development platform banned.. but you love it so you dont care.


instead of asking people to just accept the centralisation as fact and move on.. its actually more morally right and appropriate to critique, scrutinise and highlight the problem to make people aware of it, instead of your attempt to sweep things under the rug and lull people to sleep in your dreamy buzzword of fake openness

the development of bitcoin is not trustless. because now we have to trust the core devs are 'doing whats right' as they dont accept any independent peer review
again core have become bitcoins government(policy makers) with their own power hierarchy and even a internal election system of how gets a seat of power

---

the funny part is these lemmings kissing the ring, want to divert peoples attention by saying a $80 hard drive for decades of all transaction data is "THE"(and only) centralisation threat, although the overlords think a $80 single transaction is fine and expected (facepalm)

Holders are only a part of bitcoin, and if someone holds a lot of coins that doesn't affects the centralization of the project. we should worry when someone holds a big part of the mining hardware, that would representa a risk for the project because they can attack the network with that, but Holders doesn't represent a risk at all. maybe a risk on the price and market, but that can't affects the nature of the blockchain.

It’s always going to remain decentralized as long as folks have full custody of their coins and security over that. The big things that will affect the individual is government regulations and taking those taxes after you cash out.

(rhetorical question)

Who's "we"? You and I, who disagree on a fundamental level on what's Bitcoin? Or you and whoever agrees with you? Or the majority of the people in Bitcoin?

If you're not a coder or a contributor, then, no offense, but STFU. This is not a communist nor a democratic system. It's a zero-trust system. If you don't like coding, contributing or discussing in mailing lists, then you hold no influence in the space. You can "critique" their work all you like, but they're not working for you. They're working on whatever they find right, and ignore the noise.

Accept the facts, and move on with your life.

This question seems rhetorical... but it surely isn't, and this is perhaps because simply due to its technological architecture bitcoin isn't, CEX, now, we certainly it look at it from that broader idea of ​​what the centralized opposite means, we could think that "maybe", but this is have in the hold of bitcoin, and that has nothing to do with the DEX concept.

I really struggle to understand what you are trying to say here. Bitcoin is still completely decentralized, nobody controls it and nobody has control over the blockchain, the big corporations have nothing to do with this also because I'm pretty sure there are single entities that own way more bitcoins than these corporations so, following your logic, bitcoin has never been decentralized and we know that it's not like that.

I think some of this is fights in the community of cryptocurrencies. The growing involvement of corporations, companies, and even several countries in Bitcoin definitely raises some questions as to its governance structure and what it means for the future of the network.

On one hand, the local and government interests are a violation of legitimacy and potential of Bitcoin as a store of value or as an investment asset. The companies generally increase liquidity, stability, and adoption. This would foster growth and growth in the space of cryptocurrency.

On the other hand, there are valid concerns that would tamper with the regional structure of Bitcoin. Most Bitcoins in the hands of a few large participants result in control and power, which will directly affect the network for anti-censorship and basic decentralization.

However, basic technical features and the governance structure are kept the same through a shared library and consensus mechanism. The community involvement is on a rise, though. The fundamental principles and distribution of the network remain intact. Regional nodes and miners ensure the security and integrity of the system. This keeps the basic characteristics intact.


It is true that while many projects-including projects in the crypto space-commit to being decentralized, the actual development and decision-making lie with a small group of administrators, which then potentially affects the direction of the project by a big margin.

In many projects, core developers hold an inordinate amount of control over the direction that the project is going to take and the influence to make binding decisions over the community at large. Centralizing that authority-even in a decentralized community-can sometimes be a transparency and inclusivity concern.

Communities need to be vigilant and carefully look at the development process for specificity in decision making, active participation of the various donor groups, and a strong system of checks and balances that would ensure projects are sound and lend themselves to social objectives. - - -

Consideration and accountability of the activities of master developers are key aspects in maintaining zoning principles. Holding an open discussion supports everyone, and it makes sure participation is duly monitored and appraised accordingly. It may help in dealing with potential imbalances and ensures more equity in the development process.

(rhetorical question)
but how many have the privilege to merge those contributors efforts, look at who moderates the path of the roadmap, look at also who force-merges their own code in, even when certain things are controversial

when you realise that most of the "contributors" are not actively in their hundreds per release but only in the dozens per release. and then learn the "contributors" (that are not the main dozen privileged set of maintainers) are generally just spell checkers and translators and not really doing any big roadmap protocol upgrading activity.. it will become clearer that things are in a hierarchy of centralised group of devs. and we need to keep an eye and scrutinise and critique their work instead of brush it under the carpet pretending its decentralised to then become complacent

The points you mentioned - other big entities buying Bitcoin. Still to this day, it doesn't mean you can't accumulate it. You still control it. No one can seize it from you automatically without your involvement. It is still decentralised.

Not to the average consumer. Most actually store their "Bitcoin" holdings in some central RDBMS run by a broker, and even then it's just a number saying how much Bitcoin you own.

That's why my answer to the poll question was, "Who Cares?"--because in reality, most Bitcoin holders don't actually care...

Let's just say the face value of bitcoin...the exterior part of it is definitely looking like it's centralised because too many whales buying it for superiority & I believe the person that holds the most bitcoins can definitely dictate which direction ⬇️⬆️ it will be taking whether it goes up or goes down.

But it should be noted that the part that will forever remain decentralised is the Blockchain because it's a decentralised network of computers running the show.

Bitcoin is completely decentralized but many people think of it as centralized. If Bitcoin were controlled by a single person or organization, we could think of it as a centralized currency. But since Bitcoin is not controlled by any single person or entity, we can never consider it as a centralized currency. If Satoshi Nakamoto himself came forward and took control of Bitcoin we could assume it would become a centralized currency, but Bitcoin is still considered a decentralized currency as it is not controlled by a third party.

True that and this is necessary and needed for Bitcoin to get adopted in the system where centralization is the major power.  If Bitcoin won't get integrated to a centralized system, then this will slowdown the adoption of Bitcoin.  Remember, it was the centralized systems like casinos, financial institutions that manage investment and exchanges that push Bitcoin advertisement too hard.  Regardless, even if Bitcoin is integrated to a centralized system, its very core is decentralized in nature so i do not think that Bitcoin has lost its decentralization because we still have this p2p feature where we can use anytime.

Not quite. Bitcoin is still decentralized, despite the fact that most institutions are buying large sums of the circulating supply. What matters is node distribution and miner support. The rich can control the supply, but they won't be able to control the network hashrate. This means, they will be left out of the network consensus. It's ultimately in the hands of miners and node operators (people like you and me who run a full node at home). This is only possible in a PoW chain like Bitcoin.

For Ethereum, it's another story. Since it's a PoS coin, whales and big exchanges can influence the direction of the project with their stake. In other words, their ETH holdings can be used to participate in network consensus. Talk about centralization. I sure hope BTC stays decentralized enough to withstand the test of time. Otherwise, it will be "game over" for good.

The Bitcoin network is decentralized because it allows peer-to-peer transactions without any authorization.  While you can control your funds as you wish, they can never be centralized because no one's personal information can ever be traced through a Bitcoin wallet. transactions can always be made anonymously here. so it is not possible for any country to centralize Bitcoin. Because Bitcoin's algorithm can never be changed. so it will remain decentralized for life

Bitcoin is fully decentralized but its decentralization system is changing day by day. Bitcoin is now being controlled by a number of famous people especially any one of their announcements can cause massive changes in the Bitcoin market. If Bitcoin is decentralized then no third party or counter party will control it and their big announcements will not affect the Bitcoin market but the system is completely upside down. If Bitcoin is controlled by individual institutions or countries then its decentralized nature will definitely change.

According to https://bitcoindevlist.com/ there are 67 Bitcoin developers listed there.

According to Bitcoin's Github, there are 947+ contributors.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

There are enough developers for Bitcoin decentralized projects and they are world class developers.

Yes, I think that we continue to think about the same classic definition of decentralization in this topic, but the OP meant something else. He has already been warned about the terminological confusion, so it would be more constructive if we focused on answering his question.

Yes, I'm worried about more and more Bitcoins being held by such groups as it makes it easier for them to manipulate the market. If we were worried years ago about the power of miner farms, now we have additional risks to worry about.

What people do and how they decide to use BTC does not affect the network in itself, BTC should be stored in a self custodial wallet but if people decide to store their funds in a centralized exchange, then it is up to them and it does not change what the network is about.

Institutional investors can buy as much BTC as they want, which can have an influence on the price of BTC, but it does not affect BTC's decentralization, as long as no central authority is in control and nodes are scattered all over the world, then the network remains decentralized.