Bitcoin Forum

Hello all,

Just a question I asked myself many times, and now I would like to post it here.
While being anonymous does have alot of benefits, but using a currency or money i dont think its a great idea, i get a bit upset when people say "bitcoin is becoming more and more centralized" but its not even true first off, bitcoin (client and protocol) is opensource and still pretty anonymous, its the services in which accept bitcoin's are being centralized, and for good reason they are centralized, I do not know where you other bitcoiners are living from (a fantasy world?) but i live here in earth, and as long as there are humans, there are scammers and thiefs! hell even in world of warcraft there is scamming and thieves, so in there eyes bitcoin is no way different. There will always be scammers and thieves so business like mtgox, and other popular exchangers ARE going to want id to prevent thief or scamming.

What most bitcoiners are thinking is "I send money or bitcoins, and get whatever I want back(paypal, dwolla, amazon gift code ectt..). But if there was no centralization there will be most likely 100 times more scams in bitcoin. 

What if that guy from bitcoinica or bitscapel never showed any id to anyone? you guys would have lost everything you gave them. meaning they go away scott-free and have no worries, but atlreast now thanks to some kind of "centralization" you guys have id and proof of who they are, so you have something to work with to try and get your bitcoins back!

I mean i would agree that bitcoin will be doomed if every bitcoin client connected to for example mtgox servers and all information was stored on THERE server, then yes centralization would not be good for bitcoin.

SO if you dont like providing ID or dont like what a exchange or other site is asking you, then try your luck somewhere else?

There are two sorts of complaints imo:

1. Using that site is a risk because tons of money is all in one place so it's a big target, I'll go somewhere else, do it myself, whatever.

2. OMG that site is trying to CENTRALIZE bitcoin!! Don't use it or bitcoin will fail!!

Only one of those is a reasonable position.

OP, have you stepped outside and opened your eyes recently?

That's why.

Because we already have a centralized solution, its called Fiat currency controlled my central banking cartels (I use those words exactly, don't assume the meaning, look it up).   


HERE, we are trying something different.

The dev team employs open verifiable processes, making it easy for anyone to fork the code -- or the development team -- and do a better job.

everytime there should be option, use verified but not anonymous or take it on your own and do it anonymously..

It's important to think about how the centralization comes about. There is voluntary centralization and forced upon centralization. The Bitcoin economy has many points of voluntary centralization already and there will be more of them in the future. I don't see that as a major problem. What we need to avoid is the latter.

Lets be precise shall we?

Yes the Bitcoin economy has voluntary points of centralization, and that's perfectly fine because all these centralized points will get removed the second they misbehave and can't make a profit anymore.

But Bitcoin itself, as a protocol, until 3 days ago had no points of centralization, especially not such that aren't dependent on profits to exist. Please provide a reasonable way how this self admitted self imposed spokesperson, policy setting, business vetting, intertwined with corporate interest body (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.msg1230272#msg1230272) can be rid of in the future should it misbehave? It can't. If corporate interest throw enough money at it, it can stay around forever, no competition can touch it.

And that's a crucial difference between voluntary for profit centralization around Bitcoin and a self asserted centralization of Bitcoin itself.

Take your pick: Bitcoin remains a rather small, unorganized, economy, or Bitcoin organizes a bit and begins taking steps to move mainstream..

Bitcoin is to be the equivalent of gold, but digital. The things that made gold the standard for money in times past was that it was easily recognized, divisible and was mined from the earth at a set rate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LaSrxtWfgc


If you can give someone a dollar, a euro, a yen ( and so forth), pay with it, and walk out of the store without giving a name or number, that means it is generally accepted as "money".  Money is just a means of transfer.


The reason it is bad when groups control the flow of money is because men can not handle too much power.




(https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger)


These folks start thinking that they are God's gift to humanity, all the while deceived with their own arrogance. They literally are addicted to power. If they somehow lost it I am quite sure they would commit suicide.

But, back to the point. We are created free and independent. We should have money to use that reflects that same truth. That is, it should free and independent.


If you meet some stranger on the street, there should be no external pressure for you to give your name if you dont want to. It should be your choice.


You should be able to choose your own social groups.  If it is evident that the stranger does not have your best interests at heart, and you are forced to give your name, ( by a small group of people you do not even know) you will suffer.


Small groups of people should never control the flow of money of large groups of people. History has sadly shown that they can not be trusted to do what is right.

In conclusion:



I dont know where that quote came from, but if it rings true in your own heart... you should continue to use bitcoin.

I have to agree with this. I (mostly) understand the critique hazek has but the truth is that some centralization may be "required" if we want to step out of the shadow. We just need organizations, in general. The form of the organization is a good topic to debate but there just needs to be more organized activity to support and develop Bitcoin, not just the technology but the public image, laws, standards, everything.

I don't deny the need. I just don't think the first solution we now have is the best or even a good one and what scares me the most is the inevitable inability of this community to ever replace it with a different one for the before stated reasons.

That is quite insulting to the large numbers of people on these forums who understand bitcoin, and have the ability to fork it at a moment's notice.

I deny the need. Are you saying that the worlwide adoption of gold as a store of value is because there is a centralized authority that forces people to use it?

The newcomers will use Bitcoin because its characteristics, not because a central authority force them. The power of Bitcoin lies in what he offers.

Do you want more demand of Bitcoins? Wait a couple years when Spain, Greece and Portugal leave the EU, when the Argentinian people enjoys their third corralito in 12 years.

Do you think bitorrent was massively adopted because some Foundation said it?

Not only that, all bitcoin is is software. Countries could adopt their own fork if needed. Software could later be implemented to create international markets to bring it all together ( all the forks ) into one market. The only thing that really limits the idea that Satoshi had is our imaginations. Dream big!


The bitcoin foundation is a test to see if those who say they love freedom will fight for it or not.

The fundamental premise is flawed...

Bitcoin-the-network and bitcoin-the-source-code are no more centralized yesterday, than they will be tomorrow.  You are accepting the troll propaganda to call anything that has happened in the past 30 days "centralization."

Frankly, the trolls might even be pushing their agenda so hard, that they are creating a Cult Of Gavin Personality where none existed before.

Satoshi's design always emphasized user freedom and decentralization of money and P2P network.  And the client has stayed true to the Satoshi design.

But even more than that, everything we've done has decreased centralization, as you can see in this post from theymos (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.msg1232232#msg1232232).  The dev team practices are far more inclusive, open and decentralized than during Satoshi's tenure.

If you look at actual practices employed by the dev team, there is clear, provable evidence of becoming less centralized, in the engineering department.

You are wrong. Devs and development needs funding that is a need that need to be met and is what I spoke of when I said I don't deny the need. There is no need for a self imposed centralized authority on anything, not even best practices or certificates or a public face.

If devs think something must be improved and want some money for their job they can perfectly claim a bounty here.

Edit to add:

A good bounty system in the forums not only get devs paid. It could prioritize users needs because they contribute in the bountys they need most.

Already disproven by reality.  Bounties have been tried, and did not work.

Do you want me to post here a list of links to all the Bountys that worked flawlessly in this forum?

This is disingenuous at best. Of course one can claim they tried to learn how to ride a bike but hey failed, even if they made only one short attempt. But have they really tried?

Just because it didn't work with almost no effort doesn't mean it doesn't work. As an example this community raised 13000 BTC as a bounty for the first short promotional video for Bitcoin which was then spent on a video that now has over 1.2 million view on youtube and funded the weusecoins.com website. If this much was raised for a promotional video, imagine how much can be raised for development? (disclamer, I don't remember the exchange rate at the time 13000BTC was raised, I think it was somewhere around $1)

Why? Frequent flier miles. There is an example of a centralized system. So, how many people do you know who are getting rich with frequent flier miles.

Did not work even after paying 15,000 BTC of my own money.

Facts and real world experience have disproven bounties as a way of funding anything approaching full time engineering salaries.

Stop with the lies and manipulation. Clearly it does work: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=697.0

Maybe it didn't work for you because you didn't put enough effort into it and just suck at it and didn't bother to ask around if anyone would be willing to help you. You failing proves absolutely nothing because just because it isn't easy it doesn't mean it doesn't work.

You fail completely at logic (and economics).

   The cost of a one-time movie != on-going engineering costs

The problem space is finding a way to fund ongoing engineering and testing.  One time bursts of funds are not predictable nor sustainable.  Try finding an example relevant to the problem.  (hint: you can't)

A rational economic actor prefers a stable, predictable income stream.

See people? What he is admitting here is that my suggestion works, admitting he was disingenuous at best earlier, it's just that he doesn't like it because he knows it is possible to be done in manner that makes it easier for him and he is prepared to do anything if it means it's going to be easier for him.

He isn't happy that the community could choose what to fund in a one time type of burst of funding, no he wants a guaranteed continues funding no matter what it is he wants to do because that's what he prefers. No he doesn't want others to compete with him for the bounties, he wants him to be the one who gets that guaranteed continues funding because that's what he prefers.

I'm done responding to him, because a man will never understand what him getting his paycheck prevents him from understanding. And boy does Jeff want his untaxed continuously guaranteed paycheck.

See why hazek is a troll?

I have self-selected myself out of the pay pool, as previously stated (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.msg1228742#msg1228742) in the main BF thread:

     I'm quite happy with my day job as a kernel hacker, and don't forsee
     leaving there;  that makes me a "community dev" for example.  (though
     I'll certainly accept beer money donations and the like... see sig)

Real world continues to disprove paranoid suspicions.

Gavin has been doing hard work, the community clearly accepts and approves of it.  If a voluntary organization makes that sustainable, that is positive for bitcoin.

You and I both know that the minute the "corporate interests" do something that goes against the interest of the community, is the same minute bitcoin is forked (probably much earlier than that actually) and the community goes with the new fork. As it stands now, the intermingling of these interests are nothing but a good thing as they help with adoption of the currencies by the mainstream.

Yeah, as it stands now when Bitcoin Foundation is still new and still needs to establish itself. But once it does that and it has some significant funding available to fund PR propaganda you and I both know the ignorant masses will never dissent. I mean just look outside to politics for an example.

And any fork will get crushed with smears and propaganda and marginalized into irrelevance. Again look outside to an example in politics.

If I know one thing about the bitcoin community, it's that they are maybe the most paranoid/ distrusting of traditional media/propaganda than any other. I see your argument, but I think you have to consider the context.

Also, let's consider a worst case scenario: Bitcoin's code is co-opted by some terrible corporate interest and a new fork was created. The mainstream was slow to catch on, but the conscious, early adopters saw the issue, with the mainstream slowly moving towards the new fork. I'm sure you can see who benefits from the new fork. Once adoption is clear for one e-currency, barriers to adoption will be MUCH lower for the next one for both merchants and users.

It's important to be clear about your attachment. Is it to bitcoin - or to the benefits that bitcoin brings?