Bitcoin Forum

Bitcoin, the first blockchain project, was built based on the concept of decentralization. Have you noticed that nearly every other project has team members that know one another? Even Ethereum, which claims to be decentralized, may have the email addresses of all its validators in one place. It very much seems that decentralization is no longer or has never been the vision of crypto projects since the days of Bitcoin. Why would a so-called blockchain product end up being linked to, say, a centralized exchange? Why are we no longer seeing qualitative, decentralized projects with anonymous teams? Even the Tornado Cash founders won't be in trouble today IF THEY WORKED ANONYMOUSLY AND FOCUSED ON DECENTRALIZATION. What seems obvious is that most blockchain products these days have their focus on making money and conforming to regulations, not giving people freedom from government control. That's why you see KYC everywhere.

You will never achieve freedom if you live in centralized world, you need to pay tax, you need to use fiat, you can't do anything you want since your country have laws etc. Saying that freedom has finally failed is like it was successful, actually it never been success.

As for decentralization, there are still people who use Bitcoin without linking their identity by using no KYC exchange and hold in non custodial wallet.

Although the Non-VAPs keep declining and the data last in 2019, but people can still enjoy decentralization.

https://imgvb.com/images/2024/07/21/5a169d9c8943a64f0943ac3f101fb53b.png
https://www.chainalysis.com/blog/bitcoin-market-data-exchanges-trading/

It's not true that if you use decentralized blockchain or platform, you will always have tax free. With Bitcoin blockchain, you only have to pay transaction fee but with altcoin blockchains and decentralized exchanges for altcoin trading, you will probably have to pay tax. It depends on that DEX policy and tax policy of that project.

Some altcoin projects like high inflationary altcoins in GameFi, Metaverse, NFT, can set very high sale tax fee.

Thanks for the information that is interesting and it is my first time to know such a chart on VAPs, Non-VAPs. I notice it is some years ago and probably there are changing trend after Terra, FTX and some lending platforms in 2022.

You seem to have confused decentralization, anonymity and control. Anonymity is not guaranteed, and there are plenty of developers who maintain anonymity and certain people who are okay with their identity being revealed.

The issue with conforming with government regulations is often a double-edged sword. Bitcoin can never or could've never hit the growth that we're observing today if we didn't provide avenues for government to regulate CeFi exchanges. CoinBase, Binance and every other big crypto company that you're looking at today wouldn't be this big if they didn't want to comply with regulations.

Compromises should be made for Bitcoin to succeed. Not everything is about working against the government.

Nevertheless, any trade-offs should never compromise the concept of inclusivity, which decentralization promotes. If we had Bitcoin and governments could dictate its direction, thereby restricting citizens' access to it whimsically, it wouldn't have fulfilled its objectives just because a few centralized companies like Binance and Coinbase are making money. The concept of decentalization puts control in the hands of ordinary people. A Benduin in the deserts of Iraq should be able to make a financial transaction without recourse to the government's financial system. There should be no rule that says that all financial transactions I make in my country must be in fiat and that the government must know about them, at least until I exchange those funds. A peer-to-peer system should be accessible to all without governments' input. 

They do not. Bitcoin has never been under the influence of a government. We've never enacted or sought to enact any policies where it compromises the anonymity, or decentralized characteristics of Bitcoin. If Bitcoin has ever been under the control or influence of a government, then please do state it here.

Your point is made with the existence of centralized exchanges or services in mind and that is what I replied to.

Has Bitcoin lost it decentralized nature? Bitcoin is still decentralized and many of the crypto that where modeled after Bitcoin still has thier decentralized nature but that doesn't mean that if the owners of such project choose to link themselves to the project and refuse being anonymous just like Satoshi did that it has changed it from being decentralized. The very concept of a coin being decentralized isn't even that the brain or team behind the creation of those kind of coin is known, as long as users have full control of the said coin instead of a single person or group of people having control of it, then it's decentralized.

That is the main issue with altcoin and the reason why most People don't still consider most of them an investible asset. Most of them aren't decentralized but have some level of possible manipulation that can go on with it which makes Bitcoin totally different from them. When using an exchange to buy your Bitcoin, you might provide your kyc which only reveals your anonymous self but doesn't still makes Bitcoin to become centralized. As long as you're not keeping your Bitcoin in a centralized exchange but you're securedly keeping it in a cold storage, you're just right on track and the concept of Bitcoin being decentralization hasn't failed a bit.

Decentralized means no one has control over a concept and that everyone within the network contributes and control it. I do not think and believe that Ethereum is a decentralized cryptocurrency as it has multiple owners who can shut shop and escape with investors money. Although it is highly unlikely that such a scenario may happen due its popularity.

The rest of your blah blah.. is out of context and it seems you are trying to get something. In your scenario you are trying to get merits with your topics. Whereas it seems you lack the ability to create content that are interesting. 

Definitely I think op is confusing him self with those terms. A decentralized system works without any third party or central authority having control of the system. That's different from be anonymous or having kyc. These new projects like I've said several times are just there to make profits for their developers. So I don't usually advice people to stress them self investing in such project. They might claim to be decentralized but they actually work on centralized networks where users might have to give out their personal information to use them. Bitcoin is nothing like them. It still decentralized and will remain that way for ever.  Government have tried but they hurt cannot control it. Except those who uses centralized exchanges or platforms to store their coins.

There's an obvious contradiction here. The vision of inventing a digital currency like bitcoin in a blockchain is for decentralization purpose meaning users can be a self custodian to their funds unlike the fiats which is controlled by the government with a central authorities regulating the Centralized financial ecosystem.
If you want to remain anonymous with your bitcoin holding, then practically keep your assets on the decentralized networks where your funds are at your custody and you literally doesn't need to do KYC there.
The concept of KYC it for crypto users who may want to trade their bitcoin assets in exchange of the fiats through the Centralized exchanges networks. By so doing, you're to be let known that you're there by dragging closer to the government are you're to intersect your decentralized bitcoin to their centralized fiat currency. So then, KYC would be duly required where the government or an authority may have traceable through your resume of transacting with the banks which is under their custody.
That doesn't contradict the fact that bitcoin isn't keeping decentralization as meant to be.

The build centralized system from decentralized components. That pretty sad actually

This is something a lot of people have been discussing since a lot of $hitcoins became
popular and some people got burned.

Bitcoin is the epitomy of a decentralised blockchain project. There are others I
guess which claim to be decentralised but they are questionable either in how
the project is managed, how data is collected or have a centralised group overseeing
the decentralised network.

Most people I figure who get into these projects dont care whether its decentralised
or not just as long as they can get a return.

Not necessarily. They build what is supposed to be a decentralized platforms that can't be used without centralized platforms. An example is a blockchain browser I installed that needs centralized wallets to use/ Doesn't make sense,


You just nailed it. I saw your comment after posting this, and you obviously understand what I'm driving at. I think the concept of decentralization is largely absent in most new projects at the managerial and operational levels. That's why, beyond Bitcoin and Monero, I hardly take most so-called blockchain projects seriously.

Yes Crypto has long since abandoned the idea of decentralization. Bitcoin is and has always been the only cryptocurrency focused on decentralization. This is well understood. Crypto never embraced the core ideas of Bitcoin - decentralization, global security, money - and instead turned towards the idea of somewhat centralized apps and shilling of tokens. Well Crypto back in the old days at least tried to embrace Bitcoin's most important values, but no altcoins could ever match Bitcoin so eventually they just abandoned that goal and, led by Ethereum, decided to just be app and token networks where decentralization is not the goal, but they still pretend like it is (how many crypto founders have said their token is just as decentralized as Bitcoin? lol, probably all over them) because it makes for good false marketing for them to pretend they are like Bitcoin.

I think OP is confusing decentralization and anonymity. A blockchain network can be decentralized but team members don't have to be anonymous. You can create a chain like Litecoin, sell off all your incentives and just leave the network in the hands of the people. That works too. The fact that Satoshi left Bitcoin and maintained his unknown identity isn't the reason for Bitcoin being the most decentralized network. Bitcoin is the most decentralized because no-one identity controls the network consensus. It's important that we make that fact very clear.

As for newer projects, I want to believe that most of them are driven by VC funds and incentives that team members stand to gain. If a network is getting revenue from tx fees and other sources, they usually establish a foundation just to keep milking the incentives such that it becomes a fruit that keeps on giving.

Most of the early coins are still decentralized as no government or centralized entity owns or controls those coins and that's what we call decentralization.

Bitcoin is still decentralized as Satoshi has left it in the hands of the community and so are many others good altcoins.

If you mean privacy coins then Monero is a good example of a privacy coin but these days exchanges try to remove privacy coins to be safe from governments.

And to tackle that issue, we see decentralized exchanges that aren't controlled by any centralized governments or persons and can be used by anyone to even trade privacy coins.

In my opinion I only see bitcoin being decentralized, altcoins are centralized and honestly I don't see anything wrong with that, because at the end of the day people will use centralized exchanges, they will use bank accounts, they will use crypto casinos that are also centralized. So nowadays, people complaining about decentralization, complaining about anonymity, I think it doesn't make much sense anymore. because see, why are most people entering this cryptocurrency market? The answer is simple: they want to make profits. They don't want to obtain anonymity, they don't want something decentralized, but they do want to make profits

A few years ago, when people wanted to invest in cryptocurrencies, they analyzed whether the project was decentralized or not and whether it was anonymous or not. when they knew it was anonymous at least, then they ran to invest because they thought it would be the trend because it symbolized victory over governments, but nowadays with governments interfering in this market, people even stay away from anonymous currency, they prefer to invest in coins. Memes that are centralized are mostly scams, but because they will make a profit it's okay for them. By this I mean that today the market is no longer made up of people who love certain projects, who love certain purposes such as decentralization and anonymity, today the market is more commercial, in which people enter with the sole objective: to profit and abandon the altcoin and look for another to make a profit. and because of this, the creators of new altcoins will create alts with the purpose of attracting investors, they will not create decentralization or anonymity projects, they have created something that is only profitable

As long as a coin has an entity that owns it and that, in my opinion, that coin is not decentralised. For most altcoins, the creators of the coin are known, it's either owned by a company or a group of people and since something can be traced back to a central body, that thing is not decentralised however you look at it. With bitcoin, it can be traced back to nobody in particular. Yes, we all know it was created by Satoshi, but who is Satoshi? No one knows. There have been various theories and speculations, some even believe it's the CIA. This can be achieved because Bitcoin was built in a way that whoever created it is not making money directly from it, unlike most altcoins.

Monero is the closest coin to Bitcoin when we talk about animosity and decentralisation. The rest of the coins are just coins made by a centralised body and claim to be decentralised. Most aren't fully decentralised. How would they make money and rug pull if the coins were fully decentralised?

Between decentralization and profit, I believe most people will choose profit over concerns about privacy, anonymity...What is the use of remaining anonymous or private when we have no money? So, you don't need to be disappointed with today's altcoins as they no longer retain the decentralized nature that bitcoin introduced as it is not something that is top of mind for everyone.
But luckily we still have bitcoin and it still retains its decentralized nature so if you like and care a lot about decentralization then you can stick with bitcoin and don't bother with altcoins. As long as bitcoin exists, the concept of decentralization will never go away.

1.So you are suggesting that the early Bitcoin developers shouldn't have known each other? Every project has a team of developers. It doesn't matter if the project is centralized or decentralized.
2.The centralized crypto exchanges are just platforms for trading. They have nothing to do with the blockchain. Decentralized exchanges are a thing, why are you still whining about centralized exchanges?
3.Decentralization doesn't mean 100% privacy. The Tornado Cash founders probably made some mistakes with their OPSEC, which revealed their identities.
If you don't want to deal with KYC, just check out all the non-KYC crypto services on notkyc.me(if I remember the domain correctly).

Decentralisation is lovely. Restoring power to the people by eliminating middlemen. Still difficult. Like starting a business, it takes time, work, and adaptability to survive. Bitcoin started something spectacular. But every startup requires structure, right? Some guidance. It gets tricky there.

Ethereum claims to be decentralised, however it has some centralization. Not a dealbreaker, simply part of the process. I've compromised in my enterprises too. Progress is what matters, not perfection.

DEXs are real. They're carrying out the initial goal of empowering the people. No KYC, no government control, just freedom. We need more of that. Decentralisation is a long path. Its hard but worthwhile. Like building a tower, it takes time and effort but yields a masterpiece.

When a peer-to-peer network makes it easier for people to make transactions, such as when we send an email without needing to go to an office in charge of shipping or when people no longer need to go to the bank to send money to other parts of the world, people will naturally be greatly helped.
Initially there may be doubts about PoW, but in the end those who rely on PoS also intend to switch to PoW.
From this I can say decentralization has not failed.

Problems everywhere require KYC, it is optional. Whether you want to do it or not, it depends on the individual.

Average consumers don't want or need "decentralization" and never have.

The only unique benefit of Bitcoin's architecture--the blockchain architecture--is that it resists legal scrutiny by governments.

That's it. That's all it purported to do when it was invented. You can say Bitcoin and blockchain can do all kinds of other things, but so can non-blockchain architectures (like Haypenny (https://haypenny.net/whitepaper.html), for instance).

Most average consumer investors don't live in the "grey market" that forces them to make sure their assets or transactions could be discovered by a legally constituted government.

Most average consumer investors do not want to tangle with their government at all. They just want to click on an investment and for that investment to go into their account.

And Bitcoin itself is less private than privacy-enhanced non-blockchain architectures because of the public ledger and chain analysis.

Today, Bitcoin is just a meme that a lot of investors invest in. There's nothing wrong with that, and it may well have a long life as a cool name people click on in their investment app (which is on a centralized database with full KYC), but that's all it is to them.

Achieving bitcoin’s level of decentralization is not an easy thing to accomplish. Most new projects that launch are focused on growth and increasing the price of their native token. Without having an active and vibrant community, your token will just become irrelevant and it won’t matter how decentralized you were.

Users are also at fault much of the time because too many people are looking to get rich quick, and would rather invest in whatever memecoin is trending rather than support projects that have stronger fundamentals and are more decentralized. The incentives are just not there for something similar to bitcoin to emerge again.

One of the reasons why most developers are now focusing on making centralized coins is because the government is also making strict regulatory laws. Achieving decentralization is now difficult since almost every transactions that require an exchange will need KYC. Maybe developers think it will be unnecessary to focus on decentralized products in a highly centralized system.

Bitcoin was also able to achieve its aims because it was the first cryptocurrency and needed limited publicity. Currently, there are tens of thousands of cryptos, so the developers have to work hard to gain some market space. This will necessitate them to form centralized communities that usually share ideas and promote the project. I also agree that the focus of many developers currently is to make a quick profit. They will do everything that stands against decentralization just to pump their coin.

I don't think altcoin developers are afraid of government regulations and from there they just focus on creating centralized projects instead of decentralized projects. The reason is because they are just trying to find profit from their projects and the fact that they can control their projects makes it easy for them to manipulate, pump and dump. They do not intend to develop their project long term and that is why altcoins have a very short life cycle.
Meanwhile, Satoshi created bitcoin with the aim of creating a peer-to-peer currency for everyone, a non-profit project, he did not intend to make money like current projects.
Bitcoin was not created with the goal of being an investment like today's projects, but we turned it into an investment and accidentally turned it into a perfect decentralized asset.

We should not be caring about other projects and comparing different things with each other, for example, first of all Ethereum is not decentralized and it is almost centralized (in other words), but BTC is not centralized although good amount of BTC are being held by centralized authorities but I still think most of the BTC are in hands of individuals. I might be wrong but nodes are scattered all over the world. So, BTC is decentralized and ETH is centralized.

Speaking of the owners of the Obfuscating platform, these owners were accused of something they did not but bad actors are the ones who really misused the service for which it was not made. But the involvement of regulation is somehow good for the adoption of BTC and overall crypto but it's beneficial only in the long run now, it is affecting products and services based on BTC. The answer to your last question is, even KYC can't stop Money Laundering then what's the real point for integrating KYC, its just what most of the innocent people think KYC is for but I think its just centralized exchanges using our data for personal usage and profits somehow.

I'll try to organize this topic a little better by creating a matrix.

First, here are the things that a digital currency can do for somebody:

A. Faster and cheaper than credit card transactions.
B. Evade their government.
C. Be an investment.
D. Completely private from hackers and marketers.

Now let's talk about three examples of digital currencies which represent the market:

1. Bitcoin -- truly decentralized*, public ledger
2. Ether -- PoS model, "sorta" decentralized, public ledger
3. Monera -- PoS model, , "sorta" decentralized, private ledger
3. Haypenny currencies (https://haypenny.net/whitepaper.html) -- Non-blockchain and the fastest DC in the world, private ledger

Now we can compare what each of these products do:

Bitcoin: Not A, Not B, Yes C, Not D
Ether: Not A, Not B, Yes C, Not D
Monera: Not A, Yes B, Yes C, Yes D
Haypenny: Yes A, Not B, Yes C, Yes D


So in short:

• All digital currencies can be investments.
• Only Monera or cryptos like it can be used to evade governments.
• Only Haypenny currencies are viable for mainstream consumer transactions in terms of speed and cost.
• Only Monera and Haypenny are safe for average consumers in terms of privacy.

(* Two companies control over 51% of the Bitcoin hashrate, so not that decentralized, but Bitcoin is still the most decentralized there is.)

That is simply not true. Limited supply, verifiable supply, transaction finality and divided possession in a trustless manner are properties which have nothing to do with government resistance, but can only be achieved through a blockchain.

And I'd argue that many of these properties are useful for the average person. They just don't know it yet.

Limited supply: lots of things have this, including gold for instance; you don't need blockchain to do this digitally.

Verifiable supply: lots of things have this, including gold for instance; you don't need blockchain to do this digitally.

Transactional finality: all transactional systems do this (?)

Divided possession in a trustless manner: physical cash does this; you don't need blockchain to do this digitally.

In short, a digital currency that does not use blockchain can do absolutely everything Bitcoin does faster, cheaper and more securely--except resist government subpoenas*.

(* Except that anything that has a public ledger is subject to chain analysis; except that even Bitcoin isn't "that" distributed almost all of the hashrate is controlled by very well known companies).

The only blockchain-based currency that actually does what Satoshi envisioned today is Monera and those like it, or the combination of Bitcoin and a mixer.

Almost all consumers who use Bitcoin use it as a meme investment, which doesn't require blockchain or any technology at all for that matter.

Might sound like a funny question, but how do you really know that gold is limited? You don't really know. You're guessing. There may be asteroids in outer space, full of gold, waiting to be found by the human species.

You clearly have overlooked "trustless". There is no money system in the world with verifiable supply in a trustless manner, apart from Bitcoin. And, as I've already said, gold's supply isn't verifiable. In fact, no money supply is verifiable, apart from Bitcoin, trustless or not.

Transaction finality, in general? Yes. Transaction finality in a trustless manner? Only blockchain systems, and physical cash.

You probably don't know, then, the meaning of the word "trustless". There is no mechanism which can provide both of us divided possession of cash in a trustless manner. We either need to trust each other that we will keep our word, or use a lawyer during the transaction process. With Bitcoin, we can create a multi-sig address, fund it, and when you want to make a transaction, you'll have to take my permission, otherwise the funds don't move.

For all practical purposes, the supply of gold is well known, as it the growth of gold discovery.

It's true that there's some chance that a giant asteroid could hit the earth made out of pure gold, but we'd all be dead if that happened anyhow.


What exactly do you mean by "trustless"?

In the case of Bitcoin, you are trusting a set of miners to faithfully execute the software. It's a good system with good trust, but it is not "trustless" in that sense.

But please, try to define your terms in benefits to the end-consumer rather than abstract ideas--that might make it easier to understand.

Transaction finality, in general? Yes. Transaction finality in a trustless manner? Only blockchain systems, and physical cash.

[/quote]

Again, what does "finality" mean in this context? Again, define in terms of benefits to end-users.


Again, what are you talking about here? I can guess at a few things, but maybe you can clarify instead? Why is this thing you are describing "good" for people? What benefit does it give them?

Satoshi meant well, but unlike many people will argue, the idea of cryptocurrency still remains a growing term and knowledge today because of the success of Bitcoin.

Despite the control of government in form of regulations to make Bitcoin and exchanges bare, the idea of decentralization will always be a bleak term and only attainable by those who are well versed in Blockchain development and languages and can understand economics that they know market trends and unfavorable policies with loopholes to exploit.

What will the supply of gold be in December 2040? You can be absolutely certain about the supply of Bitcoin that month.

It is trustless in the sense of a game theoretical fairness protocol. This is the definition: https://github.com/lnbook/lnbook/blob/develop/01_introduction.asciidoc#fairness-without-central-authority.

In short:

But, read all of it. It's good stuff.

Being able to know exactly the inflation rate of your currency, at any moment of time in the past or the future, gives the producers and consumers the ability to protect themselves from arbitrary inflation and devaluation of their purchasing power. It also creates an environment, where prices cannot become distorted by bad monetary policy. Money that is not prone to corruption is a net positive for society.

If you send me bitcoin, and the transaction is sufficiently confirmed, it cannot be reversed, no matter the excuse. That's accomplished without trusting any third parties.

Sadly, but yes, this is happening everywhere. The companies, in order to operate, need the support of the government, and the government is putting them under pressure to take KYC of their customers. I doubt that hardly any decentralized platforms are available. In many countries, crypto taxes are very high, or they have just completely banned it. The government is trying hard to break this ecosystem, but as long as P2P traders are present, I don’t think the concept of decentralization will disappear.

Really?

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-cyprus-bank-disaster/274096/

Only Biden's rotten brain would make such a ridiculous claim. :D

But what earthly benefit does that technical thing bring to consumers? Why would anybody want that?

I know you might think the answers are obvious, but once you define the term through it's uses, then you'll see the thing isn't unique at all.


Great, that's a tangible benefit.

You don't need blockchain to achieve that benefit.


Again, a benefit. But again, that can be achieve with any transactional system, and indeed, almost all transactional systems in use today work that way. If you reverse a credit card transaction, for instance, you aren't removing the original transaction from existence, you are creating a new transaction that has the net-effect of counteracting the first transaction--exactly as you would do (and is commonly done today) with Bitcoin or any other digital currency, or any other means of value transfer for that matter.

As for "trustless", that can mean a dozen different things, so the question is, why do I want "trustless" in the way you define it? And/or why is trusting the Bitcoin network and its set of miners superior to trusting other entities like a financial institution*? Again, what is the benefit to the user?

Hold on, give it a few more posts and he'll tell you about his favorite little shitcoin project (Haypenny) that trumps Bitcoin. ;D

There are thousands of cryptos floating in the market today and they may have features like fast transaction which is better then Bitcoin but there is no crypto available that is truly decentralised like Bitcoin. Most of cryptos blockchain code is patent which is under the control of team and can be manipulated.  
The government greatest fear about Bitcoin is it's decentralised nature which restrict anyone from taking over it's control.

There's already a Trump currency on the Haypenny platform here:

https://haypenny.net/Trump

It isn't the "Trump" most people probably think of these days, but that's probably the point. :)

hello ;D

I think we're viewing this from an entirely different angle, and it's your persistence with the word "consumers" that sets this clear. I don't view this as a "product", in the same way that I don't view the Internet (the protocol) as a product.

You're seeing this as, yet, another financial service or instrument. I see it as the cornerstone of a better monetary system, that can fix what's broken money today.

Altcoin shillers will always view it that way... consumers, corporations, yadda yadda.

Zero cypherpunk mentality. The mentality that brought us BSD sockets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_sockets) (the exact same code exists in Windows) and TCP/IP.

I'm trying attach these abstract terms you are using to actual benefits to human beings so we can actually figure out what our respective terms actually mean.

I'll try a different angle then: you say blockchain specifically and uniquely enables a "better monetary system". What is "better" about it? In what way does it help people? What would somebody want a "better monetary system" as opposed to the "bad" one we presumably have now?

Maybe hyperinflation will teach people a lesson about why they need BTC:

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1815451522748010786

Oh noez, Musk is an alt-right incel misogynist fascist racist Nazi Trump supporter, never mind! :D

I have already told you. It cannot be corrupted, as opposed to every national currency. You hold absolutely no sway in a fiat currency. It's beyond your control. And it's actively used as a tool to tax you.

Every place on Earth is currently experiencing inflation because of bad monetary policies; because those in charge cannot be trusted to manage the economy responsibly. Why should the people be forced to put trust on fallible humans, when a protocol can do this job far more efficiently, effectively and transparently?

I really wish full decentralization is achievable but on a full scale, that's what I'm unsure about. All money revolves around government and as long as they can see it, they will try as much as possible to regulate it.  You don't have to compare Bitcoin and some of this altcoins like Ethereum, it was because of such things Satoshi was anonymous till date and never revealed his identity to the world otherwise Bitcoin will not be exempted from this scrutiny.

No matter how a coin try to run decentralization, anonymous and other concepts of blockchain, if there identify is know by the government, they will impose their own rules on them if they really want to see it around else if hey refused to accept, it will only cost them more problems in the future. They just have to succumbed to the policy than watch their project take down.

True decentralization comes from been fully anonymous from the internet.

Okay, but all kinds of investments "can't be corrupted", and it doesn't require the blockchain architecture to put a cap on units minted.



Well, Bitcoin is a network that is run by... humans. More than 51% of the Bitcoin hashrate is controlled by just two companies. And any software system could conceivably be hacked, etc. etc. I agree that it's unlikely that these things will happen with Bitcoin, given everything we know about it's current governance, but it's not technically correct to say it "can't be corrupted" in some abstract way.

Regardless, again, let's try to get this down to benefits to the user, shall we? You seem to imply that sovereign currencies can be, and often are, inflated based on the actions of governments, and because of that, Bitcoin is a better investment.

While Bitcoin has recently been on a "bull run", it has also lost drastic percentages of its value in the past as well. The FTX fiasco caused Bitcoin to drop by 60%. One can imagine other market movements to move it up and down in value by similar portions, and with Bitcoin becoming a "political football", acts of the US Congress could, for instance, make it gain or lose very giant portions of its value as well.

So in fact, Bitcoin is more susceptible to governments and politics and sovereign currencies are.

Indeed, it's rather strange to imply that the extremely volatile asset that is Bitcoin is... safer than plain US dollars. While the US Dollar as seen inflation, the overall inflation rate of the US dollar has been something like 2% over the last 40 years. That's pretty darn stable--and you would be hard pressed to find any other investment that is more stable than that. Even things like gold can be hyped up by the marketplace, only to collapse when the bubble pops.

So if the problem you are trying to solve is a stable long-term investment:

1. Lots of things can provide that, at least in theory, including non-blockchain-based digital currencies and other assets.

2. Bitcoin has no track record of being that, and in fact has the opposite track record necessary to prove such a thing.

You didn't read the Github link I posted, did you?

Bitcoin is just worth $1T. It's obvious that with this valuation, it's really easy to manipulate the price, at least comparably to the global reserve currency, which is USD, currently. And against all odds, it's still have been a shrewd investment. Overall, it's been rising by more than 150% every year, on average, in the last few years.

Here's the data that show M2 money supply of FRED: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WM2NS. The M2 money supply increased from about $15.4 trillion in February 2020 to about $19.5 trillion by February 2021. That's more than 26% increase of the money supply in a year. And, by February 2022, another $2 trillion were printed. That's around 40% increase in money supply within just two years.

I'm OK with Bitcoin, thanks.

Bitcoin decentralized concept has not failed and Bitcoin is still using proof of work because that is the only way we can stay decentralized. When new project start using proof of stakes, they are losing their decentralization but I think most new projects are not decentralized but only using that terms because it will make them to get accepted very quick in the industry as we love decentralization. New project are after making money and getting popular very fast so they will do anything that can give them fame and acceptance in the market. A decentralized project can have a known founder but he will not be involved in the project too much because not everyone can vanish just as satoshi did and will never be found. Decentralization should be in the project and not about the teams because they can be known yet not be involved actively.

We will never be able to escape freedom if we live in a country that has rules and laws. When blockchains are not focused on making money, which is what they were created for, businesses are always talking about profits and there is no reason for them to expect to lose.
These regulations are important to them because blockchain development may require funds and they want to ensure they don't get into trouble from government regulations.
There are still many people who do not do KYC and still maintain anonymity even though most of us may do that but do not use exchanges that require KYC are also still available.

Don't worry because you are free to choose and decide whether to be anonymous or not, even though it is difficult to see it that way because we live in a country where the law is the highest position.

Sure, but it's more susceptible to manipulation by the US government than the US dollar is. But above you said that a primary benefit (which I would still say is not unique to either Bitcoin nor blockchain, but that's another subject) is it's stability as compared to sovereign currencies like the US dollar. But Bitcoin has proven the very opposite to that.


So you are predicting the US dollar falling by 40%? When do you predict this will happen? And if it doesn't happen, will you re-examine your understanding of how macroeconomics works?

And if the wrong candidate gets elected in November and Bitcoin drops in half, are you still going to think Bitcoin is better? And are you still going to maintain that the US Dollar is manipulated by politics, but Bitcoin is... not?

For that matter, are you actually telling me that you personally have your entire net worth invested in Bitcoin? Are you sure that's wise?

Nowhere did I mention that it's "stable". I said that it cannot be corrupted. It cannot be arbitrarily inflated. Monetary policy is set in stone in 2009, and we know precisely what the inflation rate will be in every year into the future.

You have completely missed my point. I provided an example where the US dollar devalued by 40% in a short period, to emphasize why I would never trust it for saving. And if you're wondering, then yes, I do expect it to devalue even more.

If the "wrong candidate" (lol) gets elected, and Bitcoin drops by half, then I'll buy cheap Bitcoin, because I cannot imagine a scenario where Bitcoin will be declining and the USD rising over the long term.

---

As I said, we're viewing it from an entirely different angle. I don't think that it's immune to manipulation, I just think it will be the future of money. It's partly speculating and partly a plausible replacement for broken money with incorruptible, honest and pure money. A matter of life and death.

Got it. But what value does this trait actually give somebody? Bitcoin has a finite supply (again, like a zillion other assets). But the price fluctuates wildly. You say it is "uncorruptible", but what earthly value is there to an asset that is "uncorruptible"?

In terms of value to actual human beings, any asset's value stems from it's... value. As in, what you can trade the asset for. In other words, can you buy dinner with it, or not?You trade that asset for Dollars, or Euros, or Toyota Corollas, or whatever, and you improve your life with the thing you trade for.

Bitcoin's value to human beings can be manipulated by governments--far more easily than a government's sovereign currency, for instance.

US dollars can be (and are) manipulated by politics as well, but the US dollar's track record for value stability has been far better than Bitcoin's.


What do you mean by "devalued"? You listed some statistics about certain currency supplies and so forth, but the actual reality of prices is not connected to that at all. In other words, prices have not gone up, on a dollar basis, by 40% in the last two years. Not even close. Two years ago the price of a Toyota Corolla was only marginally less than it is now. That's true for all kinds of other assets. Overall inflation in the last two years hasn't even been 10%.

Look, I am not here to say that Bitcoin won't go up, or that it's not a good investment--it very well may go up in price. But so might any asset. Trump currency (https://haypenny.net/Trump) might go through the roof someday and appreciate by 100,000%. Or it may never be worth anything.

But you seem to be ascribing some mystic powers to Bitcoin in particular that it just doesn't have.



So the future of money is a currency that can shift in value by 10% in one day?

The future of money is paying for something at the mall, and then waiting 30 minutes for the transaction to complete?

The future of money is a currency that can cost 30 dollars per transaction?

Bitcoin surely has a future as a meme investment, and meme investments are great (I know, I'm in the meme investment business :) ). But Satoshi absolutely never envisioned it being the "future of money"--the blockchain architecture makes that impossible, for starters--and for me, I think that future is actually much more complicated*.


(* I'm working on a new Medium article on this very topic--partially informed by our interesting discussions here!--and hope to have that published soon).

I appreciate that you keep things civil, but I am foreseeing that this conversation will not lead anywhere, as we disagree on fundamental levels.

I have clarified what's valuable about Bitcoin. It's exhausting repeating it over and over again. You simply don't agree with my definition of value. That's completely respectable, and we can end it right here. In the end, the free market defines the true value. However, I cannot leave some of your absurdness unchallenged.

Here's the U.S. National Home Price index: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/csushpinsa. It rose by ~42% between 2020 and 2022, and it's at an all time high right now.
Here's the 30-Year Fixed Rate Mortgage Average in the United States: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MORTGAGE30US. When COVID started, it was around 3. Now, it's 6.77, that's 125% increase.

Groceries, gas, energy, education and other services increased in price as well, but not only due to bad monetary policies (e.g., due to supply chain disruptions). I mean, honestly, where do you live? In every place on the Earth, since this money printing, prices have gone up significantly.

You know what isn't rising at the same pace? Wages.

BTC is still not supposed to be compared with any altcoin despite their claims of benign decentralized because all altcoins have developers and team managing the projects and these team members are well known by their investors which contradicts the concept of decentralization.

KYC is only required in centralized system and exchanges so that they can have records of their customers and investors, but Bitcoin is completely decentralized, and if you invest in your personal wallets, you will know that it is completely decentralized.

You have to realize that some people here are heavily emotionally invested in USD due to 401k pension schemes.

Would you enjoy it if USD hyperinflated and your pension went... poof? I'm sure you wouldn't.

That's why they will defend the "almighty" dollar till its last breath. The exact same thing has happened in Ancient Rome.

The less heavily invested you are in the fiat Ponzi scheme, the less denial (https://www.verywellmind.com/the-denial-stage-of-grief-characteristics-and-coping-5272456) you have about the imminent collapse.

Decentralization is a broad concept that applies to a lot of things. Whether the team is public or private is not a major decentralization component to me. Bitcoin isn't issued by a single authority; blockchain is decentralized. There is a certain level of decentralization of mining facilities, and decentralization in a sense of distribution of BTC between various holders. The fact that Satoshi is not leading the project and that we don't know who that is contributes to decentralization, but isn't decentralization per se. Likewise, if an altcoin project has a CEO and a public team, it doesn't mean that it's totally centralized because there is more to what decentralization means.

Yes, I guess that's it. I define value in the way... most people define value: a thing you can use to obtain what you want or need in an open market.

Obviously value can be completely subjective, as you point out, but that's not usually introduced into a discussion like this since the reason most people want an investment to go up in "value" is so they can... buy more stuff. People are concerned about the inflation of the US Dollar because their investment in Dollars goes down in value and they can't buy as much stuff (insofar as they invest in US Dollars). People look to other investments like Bitcoin or stocks because they can buy more stuff in the future. That's the way most people use the term, "value" in this context. Layered on top of this definition are concepts like "success", "loss", "gain", etc.

I'm only pointing this out because you might find yourself confusing other people with your very personal definition of "value", because it's not the way most people use that term.

The exact opposite of what you said is true. 401k plans are investment portfolios that typically include a variety of investment instruments (including Bitcoin in the form of the ETF now days).

Most 401k plans don't include any US Dollars at all.

People use US Dollars as a measurement device, but that has no bearing on the actual value of their retirement savings.

Uncensorable, unstoppable, verifiable, globally accessible, permissionless, transparent, scarce, peer-to-peer cash is, apparently, a "thing" people want or need in these markets. It's just that, to you, it seems like these properties don't fit the needs or desires of people.

Bitcoin was never meant to be anonymous. That would only complicate things. What Bitcoin is, is private.

As far as decentralization goes, that is up to the user. If they want to centralize their Bitcoin by handing it over to a third party, then that is their right (even though it means that they bought/mined Bitcoin without understanding the concept behind it- being your own bank). And they will whine once the centralized platform exit scams, gets hacked or plainly confiscated by the government. The option to remain decentralized remains.

Personally I stay away from centralized platforms. I do not want to give anyone my KYC or my Bitcoin.  

The only reason people might want those things is because it will make them more money so they can buy more stuff.

Indeed, when you say "xyz is better" in a financial context, that's what people almost always think you mean.

But you don't mean that. And that's sorta... different :).

You seem to be saying you want those things as ends in themselves completely detached from any sort of earthly value e.g. buying things you want or need. If that's how you feel, then that's fine and I respect that. But keep in mind a lot of people will be confused by what you are saying, so just keep that in mind.