Topic: It's ok to love the decentralized bitcoin but why hate the centralized one? (Read 2792 times)

Thanks for the comment.

Where have found you in the main post the the centralized digital coin is a "government" coin? Can you show here the exact sentence in which is expressed such thought?

Then another question. Why use you the dollar or every kind of "governmental" money (in my country the money is controlled by the Central Bank and not from Government)? Why don't you live without those? Maybe you can use the barter system. It could be not controlled so easy from the Government and you will be more free.

exactly, it would be even easier to control than the dollar, which would be absolutely horrible for freedom.

imagine a coin where they can trace all your transactions, control the supply and instantly freeze your account and your ability to buy/sell anything.

if such a coin would become a global standard, we are literally less free than slaves.

don't like the government? How about you can't buy groceries anymore?

In which world do you live you addy boy? Do you know that this post can be considered as spam here? And this can make possible your ban from the forum? It is out of everything and have no any meaning. Watch to yourself and ask: what I am doing?

Anyhow I am trying to bring you in Earth. Read very well the main post and if have something to tell about what is written there will be welcomed to write here your thoughts about that post.

Do a search within yourself and stay in peace. Hope that you will find good reasons and right meanings to understand well what you have written in your post and what I am answering to you.

After the bots Bitmixer are presenting another phenomenon. Who knows which kind of surprises will offer in the future this site....

Bitcoin is one such
phenomenon, with its quasimythical origins, ground breaking
software, and fairly obvious potential, however to date early
adopters outside of the
murky world of sites such as Silk Road, the now defunct online drug store (watch out
for Silk Road 2, origins unknown),
have been few and far between.

Bitcoin’s somewhat seedy reputation
has been cemented by the seizure of
Silk Road, the bankruptcy of the Mt.Gox exchange, which at one point
was handling 70% of all Bitcoin
transactions, the extreme volatility
of the online currency, and concerns regarding  safety and
online theft.
Like any other fiat currency,

however, Bitcoin’s do not simply
disappear into thin air, and the US
government has done more than
anyone to restore their reputation,
successfully auctioning off Bitcoins
seized from Silk Road in much the
same way that the Miami vice squad
might auction a speedboat seized as
part of a drugs raid.

A little hard for me to understand your explanations. My not native English and your "complicated" and "sophisticated" explanations make me to formulate in another way my part in bold.

It will be reliable for you a centralized digital coin (with the same or better qualities like bitcoin), created from an investment of one rich person or group of peoples (investors) which will be not only the producers of it (will create and own the only pool or the various pools of mining of the digital coin) but even its owners? Do you use you such kind of digital coin if it will be in the market?

It's not that it's incorrect, it's not capturing the "parent-child" relationship and the deterioration of decentralisation in a dynamic process.

I am not against a new centralised crypto created based on an existing centralised payment system, there is no change in centralisation. The crypto is merely an extention of the previous system because it's already centralised before, irrespective of "who".

I am against a decentralised crypto dynamically moving towards a centralised environment, also irrespective of "who".


That explains it. Yes, it does not apply to existing decentralised cryptos.  

Thanks for the comment.

Your answer have nothing to do with the words written at the main post. Please read it again (if you want) and give an answer to that post. This post ask abut something totally other and don't talk at all about the centralization of bitcoin.

Let's tell that you are wrights for the first part in bold. I don't want to discuss about this your conviction because it is not interesting for the aim of this thread.

As for the second part in bold I am talking about a digital coin created after the study of the bitcoin and the blockchain. This new digital coin, that should be based at the best characteristics of the lasts ones, should be based on the peer to peer technology, should have the same qualities or even more better ones than bitcoin will be produced only in one point or several ones (can be to many) all owned by one person, a group of peoples or an Central Bank. That are the investors for every step mentioned above and for every point where this coin will be produced. And naturally, even its owners.

If there's a central controller of bitcoin, people will think someone is manipulating them when the price of bitcoin jumps. With a decentralized format, noone controls, and noone can manipulate.

Such a coin cannot exist. A clone of bitcoin, by nature, is decentralized. Even with centralized development of a bitcoin clone, it isn't centralized. People can clone the software and essentially fork that coin away from the centralized developers, so it isn't centralized. You need to define what makes that coin centralized.

Thanks for your comment.

I see a big rage in your words that prove the truth of one of my posts make here in this thread. I will suffice only with few words because I don't want to give moral to anyone. It is not this the aim of this thread. I don't see the world in such way. There are problems but the problems there were, there are and there will be always. This cannot make me fatalist or even nihilistic like I think it is your case.

I would like that you read the main post and give an answer to that case expressed there. It will be a pleasure for me to give you my thoughts after your answer to that case (if I will have to tell something).

As about the case of Greece (even this out the aim of this thread) this is not a problem only of the Governments of Greece but to all the people. I have made a comment in another thread about this case. It is not complete because there are to many other things than can be told but is enough to understand all the story of the last crisis there. If you like and if you want you can read it here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12727759

Thanks for intervention.  

First of all I'm so sorry but I cannot understand the spoken English. I'm able to communicate in English only writing. So cannot taste the video. But are enough your words to understand what the video can tell. No need to give other answer about my post. I thank you again for your comments. Feel free to comment everything in this thread or other my threads (including and firstly my thoughts). I will be happy to read what you will write. And probably to answer to you (if I will have something to tell).

You never know what goes behind closed doors, which is why we need open source on everything. What we know is, corruption with public money is everywhere. Ben Bernakle can generate more money at will, the money supply is a joke, hyperinflation is destroying currencies world wide, trust in dollar is lost yearly. The model is flawed within itself. It's not really about central banks of specific countries, but big groups of countries, the big market movers... a president of a country can't do really nothing, he is subject to orders. See Greece, and coming soon Italy, Spain.. they are all subjected to superiors. It's a big pyramidal scheme. With Bitcoin no one has a clear power over the other, it's just a protocol that transfers value... this has never seen before ever in mankind, that is why it's a very hard pill to swallow.

You are not the only. Are almost all they who make posts in this thread or everywhere in bitcointalk (even out of this forum) and are convinced that everything is wrong, manipulated, bad or near the end.

To tell the right I am not one of the above. I have to many reserves about to many things but being fatalist is something that do bad only to the person who believe this. You ask if I believe in the banks. Yes, I believe. I am very satisfy with my bank even are to many things that can be better. But this don't made me to tell that everything on it is bad.

You tell that banks make the rules as they want.

First you must know that the rules (the important ones) of the commercial banks (that's the name of banks mentioned by you) are made by the Central Banks (which have not any interest in any of the commercial banks) which not only make these, but even, and above all, control their application continuously (is one the main duty of the Central Banks to do rules and to control the correct application of those in every commercial banks).

Second do you have any idea what kind of mess and crisis can have a country if the banks have the behavior you mentioned in your post? Do you have any idea of the real anarchy and chaos will cause their supposed by you behavior in all the country? Do you know that even if it will be only partially like you mention in your post EVERY STATE in the world will bankrupt within 24 hours?

The commercial banks work with money and from money their have money. So it is natural that they think for themselves first. Like you do when you do something that can make profit for you. Even this is normal. But to pretend that the banks make the rules like they want (if made by these) this cannot be never true. Because at least will be punished by the market. The concurrence from the others banks ar the customers. I will stop here for this problem because it is not this the aim of this thread.

I had your answer about my previous post and I want to turn back to the aim of this thread. Please read the main post and answer to this post. Remember: The human manipulation in the case given at the main post is excluded. So, in other words, the human being can do nothing, even if will have this desire. It is the technology which rule and this technology cannot be manipulated.

If you want, I have the curiosity to have your answer to the main post.  

Exactly, specially this part:


Reminds me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lskpNmUl8yQ

When Letterman goes like "Oh but we have Radio, why would anyone need Radio over the internet".
People is so stupid and not prone to predict big technological shifts, that's why there will always be elites and that's why there will always be people crying that they aren't millionaires. "They don't deserve all that money". Well, if you predicted that this thing would be insanely valuable in the future instead of bashing it, you would be rich too, but you are a sheep. What's what they don't seem to understand.

you are welcome, is a pleasure for me to give you my reply.



but here you got the problem again, banks controlled by humans... in the end you will have the same problem. who believe on banks for example? do you really think that they will not create rules who benefits them?

well you can think that people can decide if the "new" rules from banks are fair or not in this case, but just look at how it works now, everybody know that fiat money is the big ponzi scheme out there and we still using it...

that's the main problem, people are so chastened about corruption that they don't believe on anything.

how can we solved it? i mean, how people can start to realize that a centralized one is not bad?

hard to say,but maybe if they didn't get any benefit and be 100% transparent about it, maybe then, people would start to believe on it, for example...




i hope that my new reply satisfy you now

Thanks for the comment.

Totally agree with you. But if it will be not the human kind who will own the new (even better) "bitcoin" but the State (the Central Bank of the given country) itself what it will be your answer? The Central Bank of one country has very severe rules in the overall process of the creation and management of its money. At least administrative ones. Which cannot leave anyone to abuse even a little with everything which has to do with the money owned by it.

Accepting here (thing that is not accepted in the main post, but let's do an exception in this case) that the human kind is be able to manipulate the technology of production or other factors not allowed in the main post.

I had the answer of medUSA about this case. Now I want to understand if you will be fair in your answer or not. At least will be coherent as him in arguing your decisions and choices. Like you do in your post above.

human nature is ambitious and vain, always want more and more, if this were not so, there should not be any problem on a centralized one, but this is not the case, that's why i quote that answer, because i really think is the main reason, we should fix "our own problems", before think that everything is good, posible and normal.

Thanks for the comment anthonycamp.

I'm sorry to not give my opinions to you because both us are a little out in English. So, a little you and a little me, make possible my inability to understand well your thoughts. And without this kind of understand I cannot give opinions about those. 

ive been reading all this and you guys are makeing me to change a bit opinion the centrilized its just for rich but govs can take control even into un and europe i mean the taxes and the connection to banks will be bigger and btc price will rise but more diff to be anon and the core can be changed soo i stick to the btc as it is now never change just grow until 2020 then will see.

Where is the not correct part of my sentence?  

Let me explain better. I wanted to tell exactly that you tell in the first part but in the second I had another aim and another meaning. If behind the digital coin could be an unknown group of peoples (or only one rich person) for you and create this coin (closed or open source this is not the problem in this case) you will believe this coin? I think not because behind this coin is something that has not your trust: you don't know who are they. This case is the case when we have e centralized digital coin (group of people who own this coin, or even one rich person) and you normally cannot trust this digital coin. So who is behind the digital coin is very important for you (and for everyone I think). This is the case bolded by you in my phrase and its meaning (what i wanted to tell with it).

It's ok now?  

Bitcoin is another case which have nothing to do with the entire phrase. Bitcoin is decentralized. In my phrase is told only for the various centralized cases.  

A national currency is already centralised. My trust towards these government centralised crypto(s) comes from the government who issued them, the same trust I give to their fiat counterpart.


Partly correct. Digital tokens of existing centralised money systems are acceptable to me because we have been using them for years (bank accounts, credit cards, phonecards, supermarket points...)

A centralised crypto based on a centralised national currency offers no difference in central control. If I am already using that fiat for years, I have no problem with that centralised national crypto. When I put my savings into a bank, I have to trust that bank. The bank then issues this centralised bank crypto, the trust I have with the bank is transferred to that crypto. Same with credit cards.

Bitcoin is different. It has no trust to inherit from. That's why decentralisation is so important for bitcoin. Decentralised hash power and blockchain invokes trust in a trustless environment.

I like more and more your answers. Are reasonable and full with truth. Really, thank you to much for giving your thoughts in this thread. I want to clarify only one thing with you. You don't like any kind of the centralization except the governative/central banks one? Or in other words. You tell that you have no problem to use a national digital coin which will be a centralized product. Then don't like the centralization as a quality in all the other option given below. That's mean that the centralization, as a quality, has to do not with the fact of being centralized in itself, but with the fact who is behind the centralization? That's correct?

Good. This kind of answer have meaning for me.

I have to tell only something about your bolded thoughts. If the human kind would be satisfied with the existing inventions we shall be yet in the time of the wheel mentioned by you. In other words if we will be happy with something we have and a priory will reject any other new thing without analyze that, at least, bitcoin would be yet only in the white paper of Satoshi, we will write everything only with or hands and go at work only walking. This only for the theory.

As for my post I asked about something I know they hate (from numerous posts read by me and various expressions written in to many ways but that in essence can be named as "hate") and not only for the coin. The users of this forum don't hate the new coin but the centralized one. I asked about the centralization and then for the coin. They connect the centralization (maybe have right) with the abuse, the corruption, the manipulation, the injustice and other unpleasant things had from the governments or various authorities in their countries. At least this is my guess. This their big problem are spreed even in the kind of coin they love. Not without reason I write clear and without any equivoque THE SECURITY OF PRODUCTION of this coin and not without reason give to this coin the same qualities like bitcoin. The only difference is being centralized the first and decentralized the second.

Normally if they like bitcoin have no reason to not love the second one. Who cares if have owner or not. If it is the same product and nothing change from bitcoin why not like it like bitcoin? Make no sense. The only reasonable answer TO MY POST must be: If are the same thing normally I would like it. Maybe (or for sure) bitcoin a little more because I am affectionated to it (and will give to it more support always because of this) but I would like and use even the second one because have the same qualities. Are the qualities which make the people like bitcoin. Cannot dislike the same qualities have from another product clone of bitcoin. Repeat: have no sense.

But almost no one has answered to my post. Or only partially. Everyone has answered to his post: the post in him's mind. Giving and making free interpretations connected with their hypothetical coin (or its production, or their conception of centralization) in their mind.

This is a big problem. If I want to know something I have not the answer of that I write but the answer of that the poster has in his mind about that something that I have write. This is really a big problem.

Any government or bank can create their won centralised coin based on the blockchain technology. It's the same as the ones and zeros in my online banking account, or my payment card for public transport. The only difference is the "database" working in the background. Credit Cards are digital representation of many national currencies, I have no problem with that being centralised.


Because a more centralised bitcoin increases the risk of control/shutdown/manipulation by a single authority. Transactions can be reversed and address blocked if a single authority controls a majority for the hashrate.


That's correct, pool owners can collude to create this "centralised cartel" and manipulate transactions. This will be damaging. The good news is they do not have incentive (yet) to collude because as soon as they were found out, those pools will loose hashrate and could result in their demise.


Trust in Bitcoin will be damaged if it became centralised. What else will be upholding the value of Bitcoin if this trust is jeopardised?

Thanks for the comment.

There are to many things to discus in your post but I will leave those because are out of the aim of this thread. I'm answering only to those which can do with it.

A centralized digital coin (produced in the way mentioned in man post) can work like a clock in the same way like the decentralized one. There are not any obstacle to realize this. If you know one or some it will be pleasure for to read those here written by you.

I don't see any quality in the "nature" of every kind of digital coin (produced in the way mentioned by me in my man post) which is against its being centralized. If you know some or even one such quality, I invite you to show me that (those). I will learn something new.

Where have you read (in any of my posts here) that the coin created and for the which are asked thoughts is "something that can be infinitely replicated or manipulated in any possible direction"? In this case you are talking for something that exist in your mind and not in my posts. I agree with you when you write that the "users must know that the system they're using can't be abused in that way otherwise they'll abandon it". But where have you found (in my writings) the possibility of the the existence of this option in the production of the digital coin about which I write in my pasts? Show me the phrase or the sentence. I'm obligated to tell that this is again in your mind and not in my words.

As for the last sentence, first, who told that the digital coin mentioned by me it will be made with closed source one, and second, why one closed source digital coin must be for sure and always manipulable, misused, etc. etc. To many software work excellently (or are the bests in the market) and rule the entire world even are not produced with open source (google, all the Microsoft products etc.). All they are centralized products. Why this mew one product supposed by me must be different from those?

And at the end: Have to tell something about THE MAIN POST (only for the things written there) and not for other free interpretations made from you? If yes, I will be happy to read those.

Good but we are at the same point like before.  I am asking about another kind of creation of the digital coin not like you mention in your second post. The not possible manipulated one. It is for that that I need your opinion. IF this kind of coin exist AND IS CENTRALIZED (from an technology that CANNOT be manipulated) what it will be your behavior? So, forget for the moment your meaning in your mind for the centralized coin and imagine this one given by me. You will like and accept it like bitcoin?

I don't think too many people hate them. People just don't understand why they need to reinvent the wheel when there is already a technology that works and in our opinion works better and it's more sustainable long-term than what they will create.

Also I can understand where the disliking is coming from some of the people on this forum. If someone don't like you than most probably you won't like him back. It's just how it goes in life.

I personally don't hate anybody and I even think that they are doing us a favor long-term by laying infrastructure instead of us and teaching people how to send transactions and use wallets instead of us.

Centralisation means one authority which also equals a single point of failure and the ability to control it.

How would a centralised coin that's incorruptible work? Where does the centralisation, or any need for one, come in? Who would create something like this?

If you want a money supply that can't be messed with then there's this really cool forum you should check out...

I think what attracts people to cryptocurrencies is the knowledge that there isn't a little guy behind a leather desk who can press a button and shut you down or debase your supply.

Due to their very nature, digital currencies and centralisation aren't ever going to be a happy mix. Trustlessness for something that can be infinitely replicated or manipulated in any possible direction is vital. Its users must know that the system they're using can't be abused in that way otherwise they'll abandon it. The only way that can work is with open source programs verifiable by everyone.

It depends on money supply.if there is fair,transparentsupply it is ok,we can see on altocin market,decantrelised currencys with like 50% premining in top 20 market cap currencys
and than with dpos launched
Now one of centralised currency is in beta test,but it is network,with fair supply,no computing supply ,and no premine
Centralised ,no centralised everyting is possible to fraud or runing fair way

In my mind, a centralized coin is one where the miners are owned by one entity, the software is developed by that same entity, and the software is closed source. In this way, should that entity decide to change the rules, they release an update, send an alert informing all users that they need to upgrade. Since the software is closed source, they can pull the old binaries and then no one can downgrade unless they saved an old version. Even using an old version would block them from the rest of the network, so those on old versions can no longer do anything. Also since it is closed source, no one (except the entity) can know what exactly goes into the mining algorithm, so that people outside cannot mine. Or they are like some PoS coins where blocks are only valid if they are signed by a select group of people. This makes it so that the users of that coin have no say about anything regarding the coin, and thus people (here) don't like it.

Thanks for the comment.

You are saying that I am telling lies? Please read some of the posts in this thread.

Maybe you prefer "don't love", "are unsatisfied", "don't like", "don't prefer", "don't want", "fight", want to eliminate", "want to avoid", "want to not exist", "is a nightmare".

Are to many the other similar words that I don't remember and are to many to be used in a post. And all those, told with one only word, are "hate".

OP nobody is hating on possible centralized coins! We are just saying that this won't work and that they are wasting time, both governments and banks. At great end, we will all get to the point that people all over the world will just use decentralized solutions like Bitcoin.

Now it's their thing that they maybe see this as the only possible solution in order to not lose the complete control that they would lose if they would adopt decentralized solution.

So no, I don't hate on anybody. If nothing, these centralized solutions will prepare the population all over the world for the digital age. They will lay the infrastructure for us and instead of us.

Thanks for the comment.

No one asked about the fiat money (the fiat money actually in circulation) but for a digital coin like bitcoin (in everything) but which is centralized and not decentralized like bitcoin. You mentioned in your post that are few things that work better with centralized system. Is (can be) this digital coin one of things that can work not better but normally with the centralized system (being centralized)?

Why i hate fiat ?

Because we have seen many proof that fiat is full of scam, corruption, manipulation, high fees & won't work without good central bank or government.
That's why i have fiat & love bitcoin because it's not manipulateable, has low fees & work without central bank or government.

But, it doesn't mean i hate anything centralized-based. There are few things which won't work with decentralized system or better with centralized system.

Thanks for the comment.

Sorry but I cannot well understand what you want to tell with your post. So I cannot give a sure comment (thoughts) about it.

Anyhow I'm trying to write something guessing your answer. If you think that "government can take the control of bitcoin" you are in big wrong. First who can be this government? There are more than 200 governments in all the world. Which one will (can) do this thing?

Leaving apart this I think that no one will be able to take the control of it. For several reasons. First of all because it is produced by all the world and no one can control the people who produce it. Then it will be hard to chose the government which will do this thing. Third this government must buy enormous amounts of bitcoin to be able to own really it and to use it as it want. Can be even other reasons that I can't know or that for the moment I don't remember.

Thanks for the comment.

You are one of the few which don't hate the centralized coin. So I have nothing to tell to you about my main post. But I want to know your opinion in a situation more particular. If the coin mentioned in the main post will be a national digital coin currency with legal status like the actual currency in your country (or even if can replace it) you will have the same behavior in confront of this new kind of "altcoin"?

Then why hate the centralized bitcoin (if this could possible)? Nothing will change. Nothing cannot be manipulated on it (as I know). So, if the owners of the pools can make an agreement to act together in the same way, what can (will) change with this? This can be "practically" the centralization of bitcoin. But, leaving apart the control of amount of fees for every transaction, they cannot control nothing else. Even if these fees will go very high, the people will  decrease the use of bitcoin and they will lose users. So the fees will be lowered again. So what other can damage the bitcoin if become centralized? This is what I want to understand in this my comment.

If a government ever launched a coin, it would absolutely not be anonymous, there would be no privacy at all.

I would ofcourse still accept my wages in it, if it was the accepted medium of exchange for my country, If anything to blend in as one of the sheep.

Most of my wealth will be in anonymous & decentralized crypto long before this scenario even becomes reality though.

Thanks for the comment.

I understand you point of view and accept it totally. But if both coins can (will) exist together (if this it will be possible) you will hate again the new one? If yes can you explain why?

thats precicely my point the fact of gov take over its might come to a btc tax but the rise price will be enourmouse soo even not anon the centrilizer banks can take control of it and make it go 1000$ and put some legitimacy on it a can take good care of any btc centrilized or decentrilzed as it is.

Thanks for the comment.

Good. You hate the governative currency digital coin. But if the new coin will be like bitcoin (as it is mentioned in the main post; in other words anonymous in the same way and mass) you will like it even if it will be a governative currency?

If you will have your wage in this kind currency you will refuse that money?

Thanks for the comment.

I don't understand well what does it mean your expression: "you will have your freedom to do any thing you want with it". But a part the meaning of the previous sentence why the centralized one if created in the same way (exactly in the same way) cannot have such quality you have in mind?

Your comments mention "troubles will appear". Why will appear if will be create EXACTLY LIKE BITCOIN. So it will be the same technology which will control everything and no one others. The only difference between both will be that bitcoin have no owners while the second will have owner. But this owner have no one power in everything what have to do with the production of this coin.

What about this situation (which is the one supposed at the main post)?

Then what can be happen to the bitcoin if one pool gain more than 50% of hash power? What does it mean for bitcoin? Will be not anymore decentralized? If this is possible bitcoin will be not more reliable as it is actually?

There are a number of centralised altcoin as we speak, we can choose not to use or buy them and most just out right ignore them. Members here are bitcoin users or holders, we have a "stake" in bitcoin and most would not the decentralised aspect changed. I believe members here don't hate a centralised altcoin, they hate to see a centralised bitcoin.

Thanks for the comment.

I agree with you that this might be possible. I have a question for you. Is this situation you mentioned in your comment possible for bitcoin? If the answer can be yes and bitcoin can be manipulated you will not have more faith in it. You have faith in it because you are sure that it CANNOT be manipulated. I am asking for this kind of coin. That CANNOT be manipulated. That's why I write in my main post: "This kind of coin, like bitcoin, is protected from the manipulation (from everyone and everything) from the technology which will produce it. In other words, no one can change its production (amount, time between amounts, its flow in the market). So no one can change these essential things that can make possible its manipulation."

Do you have to make any comments having in mind THIS kind of digital coin? Why this KIND of digital coin must not have the same status as bitcoin?

Thanks for your comment:

First, what is the dangers of centralization? The manipulation? If you think that the being decentralized of bitcoin protect it from the manipulation I don't think so. Is the technology of production the reason of non manipulation of it and not he being decentralized. If you don't agree with this can you write here the peer to peer technology can be manipulated?

Second, can you show me what is non sense in my words in order that even me understand? I don't see any non sense in my words and any explanation in your words about my non sense in my words.

Third, If the country where you live create a digital coin (like bitcoin - the only difference is that is centralized and not decentralized like bitcoin) which have legal status and become national currency in you country (beside or without your actual national fiat money)  and with this coin give your salary to you what do you do? Will refuse your salary?

Four, why I have to choose decentralized or centralized? Why I cannot choose both? The banks can use both those.

because if you love decentralized, you want to support, it, how loving both will help one? yes you can continue to use both if you want

but bitcoin need to grow strong at the moment, and for this to be true, a portion of centralization must be "destroyed", sucked into bitcoin

after all bitocin, is sucking fiat value right now

A centralized digital currency/gov coin is a fucking nightmare
Everything you earn, buy & sell will be controlled and spied on, you will be nothing more than a taxed livestock

Decentralization and centralization are about freedom. If bitcoin is decentralized which means there are no organization or individual can manage it, do anything they want with it, you will have your freedom to do any thing you want with it. However if it is centralized, troubles will appear as organization and companies will try to control how bitcoin work which causes chaos and currency may go to a breakdown. Just imagine that centralization in cryptocurrencies is an attack, when more than 50% the total mining hashes are focused on 1 place, allowing them to alter with the transaction and many many more troubles. That's why pools don't want it to be centralized and 1 pool never crosses that 50% mining hashes of the total network

If it is centralized, then those important things in its production can be changed. The decentralized nature of Bitcoin means that every node will make sure that every block follows the rules and don't change the rules of production. But if it is centralized, then that means that some central authority sets the rules and tells everyone else what the rules are, even if they don't like the rules. With decentralization, if I don't like the rules, I can change them or go with the old ones. With centralization, someones says "these are the rules and that's that" and no one else can change that. So that means that the central authority can change the rules at their own whim and everyone that uses their coin has to follow.

This makes no sense:

" Being a centralized digital coin mean owned and it is normal that everyone believe that being  owned  can be manipulated.  Like the all actual fiat money.

But this reasoning, I think, have no sense in the case of digital coin like bitcoin. This kind of coin, like bitcoin, is protected from the manipulation (from everyone and everything) from the technology which will produce it."

Bitcoin is protected against the dangers of centralization because it's decentralized, so if you centralize it, it stops having said benefits...

You have to choose, decentralized or centralized. No one cares about centralized crypto currencies, because that is what fiat money is in a way. What do you think banks are? Just closed source ledgers that store numbers in a computer. The actual paper money and coins are a small %, the rest is just numbers on computers. So you might as well have it backed by math and have it open, thats why Bitcoin is better money in the digital era. You centralize it and it losses what makes it interesting.

I see in the forum various post which exalt and consider as sacred the decentralization of bitcoin and in the same amount hate the same coin (if created) but which can be centralized. It is interesting to discuss about this. Being a centralized digital coin mean owned and it is normal that everyone believe that being  owned  can be manipulated.  Like the all actual fiat money.

But this reasoning, I think, have no sense in the case of digital coin like bitcoin. This kind of coin, like bitcoin, is protected from the manipulation (from everyone and everything) from the technology which will produce it. In other words, no one can change its production (amount, time between amounts, its flow in the market). So no one can change these essential things that can make possible its manipulation. Then where is the problem of this centralized digital like bitcoin coin?

It is not the case to talk about the manipulation of the market with the existing coins in it by the speculators. Because this can happen even if this coin could be decentralized.

So, the question to discus is:

Why is so sacred the decentralization of bitcoin and why hate the same product if centralized.

And if bitcoin become centralized (if there are possibilities that this can happen in a very remote future ) it will (could, must) be hated in the same way like the second centralized coins as above written?