Topic: I believe centralized coins will eventually win. (Read 256 times)

If you thinkt that centralized coins will eventually going to win, this is why you should back decentralized system. We all at the moment think of profit, not of the technology. If you want decentralized system to win lets support it. I think they can't win all the time, they exploit us with their system. We must change it.

Governments have been trying to do that for years -- and they've been failing. About five years ago, there were multiple Congresspeople calling for all-out prohibition. They tried to deter adoption through associating BTC with crime and the darknet markets. Two bubbles later, what good did it do? Everyone knows by now that the vast majority of cryptocurrency usage is not criminal in nature. Even the mainstream media is repeating that point by now.

I imagine governments will try to push centralized coins as an alternative. I'm not sure people are dumb enough to fall for it, though. Venezuelans don't seem too impressed with the Petro.

It's not like winning or losing although both have their separate propaganda and proposal of well being so it may not win with decentralized coin because not many people have been forget about it.

will? the media is already doing it! and as you can see bitcoin adoption is still ongoing despite all that. you can't brainwash everyone. there will always be some sheep among us who will go that rout but there is nothing you can do about it. saying "don't fall for it" as you do in the next part won't change a thing. and creation of centralized coins is not going to change a thing for bitcoin as The decentralized currency. bitcoin will remain strong and grow more despite all that, just as it has been doing all these years.

I second his motion that centralized coins will eventually win than decentralized coins. I believe in this because decentralized coins will disrupt the flow of the economy of the country and it will cause destablization in the structure of the government.

So what's the difference between centralized coins and digital fiat money(the USD that you have in your paypal or skrill account)?I don't see any difference at all.I don't care that much about the propaganda acorss all media about how decentralized crypto are used for illegal stuff.Fiat money sroted in offshore island bank accounts are used for x10 times more illegal stuff,but the sheep will always believe to what conventional media says.

what you dont realise is that only 35% wanted segwit.
so by deflecting away opposition with things like REKT campaigns and mandatory forks that use threats of banning nodes and rejecting blocks. is actually making the community more one sided to one group.

replace the word decentralisation with diversity and you'll see where REKT/USAF went wrong and done the opposite of what you presumed in the quote above

the last 2 years has been like the apartheid. by saying anyone that doesnt like the BS-Cortel must be black and they most sit at the back of the bus or get out of town. all so that whites can expand and distribute their purity.. and then say that white supremacy is diverse. and that blacks, asians, are invaders that want to take over..

anytime you see anyone say "if you dont like X feature of bitcoin F**k off.. and play with something else" that is centralisation.
might be worth you learning consensus and realise that consensus has not been used in the last 2 years to decide on new rules, new protocols, its just been sheep followed in or made mandatory

you might also learn that those wanting segwit are actually the same guys that paid bloq to do segwit2x and the mandatory bilateral split(UASF threats).

the august 2017 proved that a central group can push through what they want. and push any opposition off the network

bitcoin DATA is DISTRIBUTED.
bitcoin Token ownership(privkey) are DISTRIBUTED

but the rules protocol has become centralised, everyone follows one teams rules forced in at august 2017 and milestoned in november 2017
(distributed and decentralised are not the same thing)

oh and wait until LN roles out the factories(fortknox) and where people cant just push payments to anyone. but need other parties authorisation. then it may dawn on you that those paying people like Luke Jr to say bitcoin is broke and LN is key. are the ones centralising bitcoins tokens.

then comes pruning the blockchain data before a certain checkpoint becomes centralising the data. where only a select set of nodes remain archival.
then comes confidential data and schnorr which hides if all parties of ownership agreed to move funds and hides how much is moved. thus taking away the open transparency of decentralised auditing the data, whereby nodes just blindly accept data, knowing less about what they are accepting.
then comes revocations which allow those who funded a managed transaction to have their funds revoked not just using LN revocation but the previous mentioned Schnorr

but before replying to defend them. research consensus and research what bitcoin really is. and please dont bother defending a team. because by defending a team your not defending a decentralised bitcoin. (you will literally fall into your own hole you dig by defending a team)

then while still not ready to reply with an accurate observation of decentralisation. try seeking out another full node software that has its own proposals and open coding that has not been rekt/forked away or part of the same group as "the reference client".

and when you realise any other node base is just sheep following a "reference client"(you know what i mean) then you will see how centered it all is.

i know i know you are probably going to defend a team by saying they are the best and they deserve to control the future direction of bitcoin. but just listen to yourself when you think that. listen to what your saying.

you dont need to rebut my words to try proving to me that a reference client team is essential. what you are saying is that you secretly admit the central team. you admit you love the idea of pushing any opposition to that central team away is good for centralisation. and you admit that what you hope for is distributed but centralised. rather than real decentralisation

1. Centralized coins.

2. Media.

3. Elite.

4. Tax.


Decentralization isn't about replacement, choice. Don't think centralized coins winning gonna take that choice away, it's just infantile stage of decentralization and definitely not temporary.

it depends they are centralized to where.

for example people will trust a government or bank issued cryptocurrency as they are already trusting fiat which is government issued. and because of that they will easily adopt and use it.
but they will never trust a centralized altcoin that is created by some company or a group of people. for instance you can never compare XRP, ETH,... and other centralized coins with a gov. coin.

as for "winning", there is no win or lose. bitcoin, as the decentralized currency will grow more and more and a centralized gov. coin can be used and can grow too and at the same time the other centralized altcoins continue to die.

There were other centralized cryptocurrencies before bitcoin. They all failed, because a centralized coin can be shut down.

A decentralized coin, such as bitcoin, cannot be shut down because it is centralized.

It is not a matter of winning or losing, but surviving the war against banks and governments
And  decentralized coins have more resistance

There already are centralized "coins", they are called banks, so why would the population switch to centralized cryptocurrencies? Everyone knows that the point of cryptocurrency is to not have any intermediaries, so far centralized coins like Ripple and EOS are pretending to be decentralized, and their fans believe it, but overwhelming majority of actual crypto users are using Bitcoin (check the active addresses stat for different coins), because they understand how centralized those altcoins are. We've already deflected many attempts to centralize Bitcoin in form of Bcash, Segwit2x and other forks, so the future doesn't seem so bad.

I do not think that decentralized coins are forgotten by many people, we cannot support one of them, it all depends on the people who judge and will determine its progress naturally, it may centrally have a definite law and its existence is recognized by the government, perhaps, but I only see that people really like without the interference of others, it has provided personal security and entertained the users, all we see is the extent of their development for the next few years.

There doesn't have to be a winner and a loser. Even if fiat currency (what you are calling "centralized coins") is never replaced by decentralized currency, there still can be a place for decentralized currency.

I don't think that centralized coins will always win. Talking about crypto, I ever read that there are decentralized and centralized of cyrpto market. In term of security of private wallets, decentralized applies high secure system than centralized, but in term of ROI, it gives smaller than centralized. Centralized is held and controlled by an authority and there are many elite there, and it runs as the authority rules. However, it gives a bigger ROI for the investors. In fact, in term of market transaction decentralized is higher than centralized. It means that the interest of people is much in decentralized.

All I got to say is look out for Ripple they are proudly centralized and digging their roots deeper and deeper into banks and money transfer companies. I think we need Ripple to drive crypto currency give it the exposure it needs and make more people familiar and comfortable with it. Even NEO which is a huge infrastructure is incorporating centralization to propel itself further. This is not saying that there is no place for decentralization but crypto in the centralized world is a good thing.

Tor is a good example of what you are talking about. Many people consider the Tor network as a place where you can find only CP, drugs and other illegal things because that's how the media show it. The only difference is that they won't be able to control decentralized cryptocurrencies since it will to expensive to destroy them (e.g. Bitcoin 51% attack). Some banks have started testing out Ripple which is a good example of a centralized coin. However, it will be up to us whether or not they are going to succeed.

Well ... I totally disagree with that. Moreover, I think this will be a very bad outcome of events. What is the meaning of crypto currency? Decentralization is the same (the most important thing) that beatkoin gave us. Consequently, the centralized currency ... it's just digital money .... and there is much less sense in them than in the same bitcoin

Before you burn me at the stake hear me out. 

The sheeple of the world will flock to a centralized coin and will ignore the superior decentralized coin and all of its advantages.  They will ignore that with decentralized free money we could all live better lives (aside from the banking/government thieves) as we would not always have the hand of the central bankers in our pocket.  Here is how it's going to go down.

The media will simply talk about how dangerous decentralized coins are and talk exclusively about the SECURITY one can gain with the centralized option.  They will associate child porn and money laundering with decentralized privacy coins and most of the sheep will simply avoid it.  Look no further than this forum for examples of this way of thinking. 

The elite have been using the security to erode freedom trick on us for centuries.  It will work once again.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

Please don't go for it guys.  Once your identity is linked to your public address you will have fallen into the perfect technological tax trap known to man.  It's called "Block" "Chain" for a reason.  They will tax .30 cent transactions you make with your neighbor for a used hammer.  We will have to barter to avoid.  Please contemplate this and take your own best actions.