The first decentralized currency is soon to implement a contentious upgrade which fundamentally changes its direction from bitcoin cash to a bitcoin settlement network. A decision that may have ramifications for decades to come or it may amount to a storm in a tea cup. but does the way such decision was made suggest bitcoin has become centralized in the hands of a few people.
Ah, yes, one of the arguments that a settlement network erodes the fundamental principles of Bitcoin. But really, is this going to change Bitcoin into a centralised currency? Remember, with every upgrade, consensus is still necessary, and that concept of decentralisation still clearly will and always will take charge. The decision ultimately does not rest in the hands of a few. I know if you pick out individual traits, individual circumstances, without the necessary context, then it becomes quite easy to argue that centralization has crept into the network. But I wonder if we have begun to confuse decentralisation with anarchy? And if we have, who said there isn't anarchy in Bitcoin?
