Bitcoin Forum

Some people in Bitcoin are arguing that everything (or most things) should be decentralized. I firmly disagree with them, and here's why:

1. There's only a limited amount of world-class programmers - if they are working on 1000 different projects it's very likely that 950 of these projects won't be used by more than just a few people - effectively wasting a lot of time that could be used to make a huge project.

2. Usability: Most projects that are trying to "decentralize" are not user-friendly at all. Companies however are building very user-friendly software and manage to actually attract a lot of users (see: coinbase.com)

There are certainly a few cool projects that are decentralized, but most of them will probably remain to be unknown by the general public.

Comments?

An experiment in decentralization is the basis of Bitcoin.
You can make non-decentralized systems all day, but it won't be Bitcoin safe.

Bitcoin is not insurable or refundable (currently). Its a new theory or way of payment processing.

Bitcoin, being used/placed into a centralized system, will always end with massive failure or loss, IMO.

I don't think everything should be decentralized.
Centralized has it own advantage.
It can respond much faster.

Decentralization is expensive, slow and difficult to do and is not needed or warranted for most things.

If you want to understand Bitcoin you have to learn to ignore the "wing nuts" and focus on the technology.  Many people make exaggerated claims because they are using Bitcoin to promote a political agenda or they are cultists.  I would suggest enrolling in the Princeton U class at https://piazza.com/princeton/spring2015/btctech/home rather than listening to random people who misrepresent or exaggerate things.

Does that mean you'd prefer not having the Winklevoss ETF? (even thought that could be a massive boost for Bitcoin)


Okay. I just saw people saying that a few times now and wanted to comment on that.

Personally, I want bitcoin to become a respected recognized system that is safe and reliable.
It is already designed to be so.
My problem is when I place it into another system that is the opposite of what Bitcoin is.
Then my bitcoins are not safe, prone to loss, loses respect, and ultimately seen as a scam.

If the ETF is insured, then common people will use it. But they won't own BTC, but a piece of paper.
The BTC will be held by Winklevoss in there centralized system, I assume.
If the Winklevoss don't have an independent auditor every so often, how do will we know they have the BTC?

Centralization is fine for normal systems. But when you throw BTC in there, I think we have to be more careful.

As long as participation is voluntary, then you can have all types of projects.
When you have a Gov't forcing centralization, then you have huge problems.

We should decentralise everything we can in my opinion.

First sensible thing I've read in this forum all day

So you are going to have a mining systems for everything?   Are you going to mine at a loss to keep it going?  Do you mine now at home?  If not I have some miners in the attic that will cost you 2 or 3 times as much to run as you will get back in Bitcoin.  Will you run them and spend hundreds per month on electricity for no direct benefit to you?

Not everything but the most important things should be decentralized. For example banking system. We don't need centralized banking system and a government which emulate money with no backup. We also don't need centralized exchange systems. Why do we trust them? They say they are hacked and they run anyway.
OTOH we need private companies to produce better and usable things. Technology is developing faster when you have profit realisation. No profit, less development.

The Internet started as a decentralised network, basicly it still is, though there are many single points of failure that will break the whole network, something that the initial decentralisation of the network was designed to circumvent. Bitcoin is growing towards that state too, where allready we put our trust in big Chinese mining rigs and online wallet facilities that almost operate like banks! So beware for the mistakes we allready made with decentralised technology and with the old fashioned fiat!!

Idk, I guess in some places is not profitable to mine but where electricity is cheap or free it is profittable. Exchanges should be decentralised to we avoid "hacks" when exchange declare that someone hacked them and vanish with ppls coins. Also decentralisation of everything we can prevent service to be scam and that is also one of main Bitcoin problems.

Decentralisation is not equal to mining, it does require some sort of investment, it will cost you your computerpower and some electricity, but how bad is it to invest in something that will decentralise a part of your wellbeing? How bad is it to contribute to a free-er world without getting financial benefit?

Like I said above I suggest enrolling in the Princeton class about Bitcoin because the comments here show that most people posting here don't understand what decentralization is and how it is achieved.  Decentralization does not atomically prevent scams and it almost never the most efficient way of doing things.  In some cases it might be worth it but those cases are in the minority.  Some people here talk about Reddit being "decentralized" because there are upvotes, etc.  If that worked we could just post the blockchain on there and do away with all the mining expenses. 

I never said anything was good or bad, I just pointed out that people won't expend resources without a direct benefit to them.  Saying "other people" should do it then you are back to the centralized system you want to avoid. 

 

I think the question is: (Why) Should everything be centralized?

Decentralization gives dev's the opportunity to work in whatever they want, and donate their time accordingly...

As for usability, Internet wasn't suable a few years back. Look at it now... :)

A change takes time. And to see if the change is worth it, we must kill that time by making the change happen. Only in the end, when we see the results, we can see if it was worth it. I think it will be, in the long run.

Not everything, but there should be decentralized alternatives toward the official centralized ones.

Really had some messed up comments on this myself , but i won't now
Thank you for the link , this seems pretty helpful for learning :)

Anarchocapitalist advocates often are out of arguments when confronted about the obvious problems 0% regulation generates.

I prefer decentralization based the basis that nobody can controls it or shut it down. Based on that reason alone any other justification may not be important. That's how I think...

I just read an interesting quote from satoshi that dannyhamilton posted in another thread concerning the number of nodes.
Basically satoshi really didn't intend bitcoin to be completely decentralized.
He expected huge server farms to be left to run the nodes. While everyone else runs a light wallet and synchs with
one of possibly a hundred server farm nodes.
I think a digital currency needs to be decentralized more myself or it's just playing into the hands of a one world government.
Where all citizens have a ipv6 address and everything is connected to their address like americas SS #
Your wallet will be generated against your IPv6 addy and all transactions will be credited/debited through this.
sounds kind of sci-fi tin hat huh?

All things are relative. Dogmatism is always proved to failure.(And even this sentence proves itself as false and is self-contradictory. :) )

When i talk about centralisation, it often concerns centralisation of power.
When you delegate power and centralise it in to the hands of one person, it
often happens and happened that this person uses the power to do bad things.

When you centralise money supply and the issuer can legally force the people to
use his money as legal-money, you create a dangerous monopole. Dangerous for
the wealth of those who use this money. How long are governments printing money to decrease their dept and for reasons of "economic stimulation"?
Think of something named "Cantillon-effect".

Centralisation often makes that you depend on a monopole. That is simply not good! In this context you can speak of decentralisation as free market-competition.

Everything has it's pros and contras. So has decentralisation.
But when it comes to terms or issues like money and power, centralisation leads to a unreasonable hierachy that very often "makes some more equal than others"!

yes, absolutely EVERYTHING needs to be decentralized

It does not matter.  What matters is the consensus moving forward.  Bitcoin is about decentralization and not depending on one person or thing.  Some people treat Bitcoin like some kind of religion and Satoshi as some kind of "prophet."   Clearly, Satoshi did not view himself that way and he didn't want all this drama and nonsense surrounding one individual. 

Comments like these show you many are completely clueless about what decentralization is and how it works.  These people should be enrolled in that Princeton class instead of posting nonsense on discussion boards.

The other day I was thinking bitcoin itself is decentralized, but everything around it is centralized or striving towards being centralized. Let's just take a look at this forum for example. Here are certain people in such power that if they decide, they can destroy you - your forum nickname. Members with trust can give you negative trust for no reason and you have no way to fight against that. Admins can ban you with no reason. Isn't that the principle of "centralization" - a few people having power to do anything and with no justified reasons?

But on the other hand if you want to get something done you have to achieve a consensus of all the participants.  That is slow and expensive and the world would essentially come to a halt if everything were done that way.  Everybody involved should try mining and see how difficult and expensive it is and if you use Bitcoin for any length of time you run up against confirmation issues.  It taking too long to be viable in certain use cases and people substitute centralized services (Bitpay, coinbase, etc.) to compensate for that. 

centralization have it's own advantages and it's pretty good with it :)

Most are delusional anarcho capitalists like Jeff Berwick.

If someone calls themselves an "anarcho capitalist" you know right away they are not credible.  If you had anarchy it would not be possible to be a capitalist because they would not be able to protect the property that is amassed (except by force).  In any case it is a waste of time to argue with those people as they will just go on forever and constantly point to some kind of reference that "proves" they are right.  They fall into categories:  Young people who don't know any better, scammers or tax cheats, and mentally ill.  They make it difficult to promote Bitcoin but as it becomes popular those types will be pushed to the side.  Places like Jerry Brito and Coin Center and the involvement of Universities like Princeton will change the face of Bitcoin over time.   You may notice this forum has gone way down in importance mostly because of the nut jobs who run the site.

How about thinking on operating by standards fruit of consensus? I mean, distributed in a way that not only individuals but groups that share same interest/needs define their own rules. Coinbase.com is not a good example, it is a closed service where a privileged groups define everything, if there is no power to refund, then how can we get protected? I like how cooperatives work, we need a network of cooperatives that create services and goods, that operate under standards and where decisions are taken by consensus. Just my 2c.

This is very idealistic thinking.
It's not possibly really, not for all aspects of human life, like politics, public service, banking etc.
Bitcoin is great example of decentralization but such model can't work in every area of human life.

If someone talks about "anarcho-capitalism" he talkes of decentralisation. If someone talks of Socialism he is talking about centralisation. Let me guess: You see liberalism as something bad, something that must be regulated to sustain?
Or one of those that don't know what capitalism means, so they call it fascism, because they do not know what that is either? :)

Anarcho-capitalism means that you need no state-regulations. Everything can be negotiated between free market members.It bases upon the non-aggression principle. Nobody is allowed to hurt another person, because it violates their rights. But you are right, there would be no state authority, to watch after individual rights. It would be a private one! Which is much more efficient, credible and works consumer-oriented. In fact state authority will never manage to do that ;)

But i guess you knew that allready.

I don't think everything should be decentralized obviously, but there are certain things that should be like marketplaces and exchanges.


But there's an opposite to this. What happens when there are certain situations or scenarios where not being able to shut something down are a bad thing? What happens then?

Consent may be slow, but it's absolutely necessary.

From a semi-technical point:

Maybe it takes longer to reach a consent, but consent is the most important component in a free and peaceful society. If power got centralized a hierarchy is created.

The main problem here is our holy-grail-decision-principle : Democracy! Democracy is like a permanent 51% attack that is accepted as legit!

Democracy is a dictatorship of the majority and stands therefor diametrical opposed to any form of freedom, not to talk about any free decisions.

If we want freedom and sustainability, we need to do things in a sociocratic way. That says that the the vote of the majority has the equal value to the minority's vote.

What does that mean?

The people find something, a foundation, a consent, that brings them together. Everything above that consent has to be done on their own. For example: 20 people buy a farm and want to produce their food by themselves. Ironically there are 11 people that eat meat, 9 do not. What might happen in a democratically oriented system? Everyone pays for meat production because the majority decides to do so. In a sociocratic system they have a common foundation, the farm and the support of the community. So the decision would look like following (maybe): You find synergies in both projects and meat eaters support meat production, vegetarians finance vegetable production. Where both projects can work together, they do. Like use the same house to produce their products...asf.

So,when you talk about decentralization,don't forget that democracy is not compatible with that.

Democracy does one thing for sure: It produces hatred, strife and violence. It's just a matter of time.

Maybe the anarchy is not so "bad" , the actual democracy (with this economic system) has failed. Bitcoin is a revolution and at the end I'm sure it will succeed. As MarihuanaStocks told (and this is true):

Democracy is a dictatorship of the majority and stands therefor diametrical opposed to any form of freedom, not to talk about any free decisions.

No, not everything should be decentralized.  Bitcoin, the currency and protocol, itself is inherently decentralized, but doesn't mean the applications, systems, and companies surrounding Bitcoin has to be decentralized.

IE Coinbase, Circle, BitPay, Gemini, COIN ETF all being centralized companies or services, but support Bitcoin the currency/protocol.

It doesn't have to be an absolute thing, it can be a hybrid give and take system.

Not everything should be decentralized. Why not? If it all were decentralized, nobody would own any private property. If nobody owned any private property, he wouldn't even own himself. If he didn't own himself, and there was no decentralization, nobody could own him, and he essentially couldn't do anything.

Let decentralization exist only for the things that people have joint agreements about, and only the kinds of joint agreements that are written down. Otherwise decentralization will become a massive socialism worse than even the greatest socialism of Russia and China combined.

:)

That is so far outside of reality it is not worth discussing and it really has nothing to do with Bitcoin.  Linking these discussions and cults to Bitcoin just makes Bitcoiners look ridiculous which is why I suggest taking the class. 

This has a lot to do with Bitcoin, as Bitcoin is a democratic paradigm. Or aren't 51% attacks an issue in "your reality"? :)

Bitcoin is a software program and protocol that is a partial solution to a computer science problem called the Byzantine general's problem.  While Bitcoin can be used as a tool for various activities it is not in itself inherently political in nature.  Also, I would point out I say "partial solution" because the mining activity creates the "facts" and those "facts" can be changed with anyone with 51% of the mining power.

As far as that wacko meme about "democracy is a 51% attack" (that Eric Vorhees puts in his signature) it makes no sense.  Voting is about achieving a consensus.  In Bitcoin people "vote" by installing software with consensus rules on their computer.  Comparing those two mechanisms I don't see where one is inherently better than the other.  In some cases one system may work better but it is really a complicated discussion about which one will work better in specific circumstances. 

This is the kind of nonsense that makes Bitcoiners look ridiculous.  You have a rather complicated question about achieving a consensus, something the human race has grappled with for thousands of years.  Then along comes some teenagers and underemployed gamers who claim that using Bitcoin will solve everything.  They think they have proved it by creating some simplistic slogan or meme.  Then they ("they" being people who have generally not accomplished anything) sit around telling everyone they are stupid because they don't agree with some childish proclamation.  Those people over at that Nakamoto "Institute" are some of the worst offenders in this regard. 

So yes, I have heard a bunch of teenagers with no credentials and mental cases like Ver who claim I don't understand what Bitcoin is, that I don't understand reality, that I am a "statist" and on and on.  Of course I see the potential in Bitcoin technology and I invest in it and set up web sites about it and do public events where I describe it to people.  While people discuss using Bitcoin to circumvent banks and such nobody ever asks about collapsing governments, ending war, or replacing the dollar unless it is question about the mental stability of the people making those claims.  If you take the class I think it is highly unlikely the Princeton professor will be making those claims.  That is the reality and if you get off your Internet discussion boards and join the real world you will see that.

Maybe we will never obtain a 100% decentralization, because I think the people will start to think decentralization = anarchy but it isn't the same thing. Instead we can decentralize the life aspect as the approach with the government's institutions but it will take some time (and remember the governments can no longer be corrupt, or "bribe").

We can try to have peaceful and order decentralisation! :D

The slide from the Nakamoto Institute :  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPY-5SR-jPQ#t=1063

Of course they use Satoshi's name without permission to try to gain attention for themselves and they claim to know Satoshi's intentions based on cult-like reasoning and wild speculation.  They call themselves an "institute" and give themselves titles like "director of research" yet they have no peer review whatsoever outside their small group of nut jobs and they sit around calling everyone else stupid like a bunch of unemployed teenagers who sit around making fun of people going to work..

You can never stop government corruption or change the fundamental nature of human society by running a blockchain .  You can maybe affect certain things and disrupt some business models but it is not reasonable to expect more than that.  Here is an example of how most people see the Bitcoin "wing nuts" (Note that this guy is starting a business based on cryptocurrencies and not some anti-Bitcoin person)

https://blog.caseykuhlman.com/entries/2014/bitcoin-somaliland.html

Yes! it should be , but is it even possible to be 100% Decentralized ???

I say: Yes, you can! Imagine, that the right ethereum-agent could do all administrative work for a city! If you see a  road hole somewhere, you post it on mist and then all people that are responsible for that street vote for repairing it, so the ethereum agent advertises the work to several company's that return competing offers. Everything transparent, fair and cheap. How nice would that be?

What makes it possible? The Blockchain!

You understand the problem of 51% attacks, but you don't understand the problem with democracy?
If 51% of the people control 100% of the tax-money(in fact they even control money printing)..what do you think will happen? :)

Yeah, I hate all these pretentious groups starting with the Bitcoin Foundation. And lol at Nakamoto Institute. Was Nakamoto even asked? Does he even agree with their views? no one should talk in the name of Bitcoin, not even Satoshi himself did it.

No, because complete decentralization would be the same as the result of 100% entropy. Of course, if it happened, nobody would care, because there wouldn't be anybody around to care. They would all be decentralized.

 ;D

Can you do that? Most Ethereum-related things I've seen are rather lame.

 

I would like to see what ethereum will do (if it will be released). Can it help the decentralization ? Oraclize can do the same (about decentralization) and it has been already released.

Something being possible is not the same as motivation to do something.  It all sounds great if you live your life in a video game or a John Lennon song but this is the real world.

First of all i'd say: No dogmatism!

Like Rome wasn't created in one day, so won't Ethereum. What did the internet look like, in the first years? A toy-network for students?

For sure, the internet is not real life. But it helps to connect real live and made a lot of things much easier and cheaper in the past years. Also it undermined censorship and bought truth with an endless mass of independent news channels aso.

Internet allready has done a lot for decentralisation. Now everyone can sell his stuff on amazon, has a platform for his show or music on Youtube. Twitter and Facebook helped destroying totalitarian regimes all around the world.


Not long ago, people said: What do you want with the internet? It's a useless toy for little kids and geeks!

Look at it now...

Blockchain technology is like a new internet. And again i hear the people saying:
Blockchain is far of reality.

Why?

I think the dominating financial system is so far of reality, that this technology is not only needed, it is the true essence of all needs. <3

For the military and government, you mean.

Depends on which government and military you mean and in which context?

I heard, Erdogan is not really happy about facebook?

USA. Who do you think developed Internet?

Correct, ARPANET was the first successful project entailing networked computers across the US.

http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/history/ivh/arpanet2.gif

The Internet did many things just like Bitcoin can do many things but it does not fundamentally change human nature which is what some of the "wing nuts" and cultists are claiming.

Yes it was developed in the USA. And yes i know ICANN.

I guess you are talking about issues of data-privacy? But isn't exactly that a central point in
ethereum-development and the whole "CRYPTO-community"? Data-security? :)

I mean, Tor, PGP, Bitcoin, Ethereum and so on... Their purpose is to realize more privacy!

A friend of mine often talks about some very weird esoteric-stuff. He told me: The peoples minds will be connected..bla..bla..bla..

I said: The peoples minds ARE allready connected!And Web 3.0 is what you are waiting for!

He said: NO! Thats nonsense, it's for kids, NSA and geeks. :)

The internet makes what human nature can not do...it connects us ALL.

And so does/will bitcoin as a globally decentralized currency

The problem is we have people like Bill Gates not fully endorsing Bitcoin because they are scared of its decentralized nature.

That's not what he said. In the videos where he talks about Bitcoin he says that he's concerned about criminals using it, but he likes that it's cheaper than traditional payment methods.

A few members of the Bitcoin community are actively taking steps to make it more difficult for criminals to use Bitcoin, but we need more.

I like the notion of decentralization. In terms of everything being decentralized, that's a bit to black and white, and extreme. Decentralization should not happen for it's own sake, but for the sake of utility.

However, stating that there are very few great programmers out as being a reason to not have decentralization does not sit well with me personally. In fact I think that's why decentralization should happen as it might create incentive so that more people learn how to program and therefore yield a larger pool of great programmers.

I have to agree with HELP.org, the vast majority of you don't even understand what goes along with decentralization. An example of how decentralization can't work on some things in the real world is:

1) Decentralization of companies (Those in the company uninformed or ignorant on matters should be given equal right as those that are specially trained on such matters? Cashier vs Manager, think about it)
2) Decentralization of Public Transportation (This would cost anyone using Public Transportation much more money than they're using for it now, as you'd be responsible for contributing aka buying miners, and Also how would any repairs get done or any improvements?)
and more

As he pointed out, Reddit is not decentralized. If you want decentralization on the scale that Bitcoin has it or for everything in life, then you need to prepare to fork out a lot of $ just to keep doing what you're doing for relatively cheap today.

Get real people.

Decentralization should be on the Internet it self also .
Like http://maidsafe.net/ project for example of Kim Dotcom MegaNet project . so yes everything should be Decentralized .

OK, let's start with your Bitcointalk account.  You need to give up control and somehow put the account into the blockchain so we can come to some kind of decentralized consensus on what you will be posted by the account. 

On the other hand you can consider https://piazza.com/princeton/spring2015/btctech/home  instead of posting nonsense.

It should not be.

Malicious people will take advantage if everything is decentralized.

Maid safe is the real shit. Kim Dotcoim is an opportunist, his stuff is not as legit.
Im going 75% in when the price goes back to 5000.

We have no choice Brothers and Sisters, we must Decentralize everything!

WE must decentralize Doctors, Lawyers, Politicians, Technicians, Scientists... they must become ubiquitous, available everywhere.

Professionals as a service whether they are A.I. or Human it does not matter, they must become available everywhere.

We have decentralized Money and with it we have gained access to all those who are willing to accept Bitcoin for their products and services.

We will decentralize manufacturing, Micro factories everywhere, expert designs custom made for everyone.

Decentralize Guns, Ammo, boxes, cars, everything.

I look forward to the day when I can randomly get into my neighbours car and pay my hard earned Bitcoins to drive to work.

Decentralized work, so I can work everywhere, Turn everything into a platform service... i want my tools to be decentralized, available when needed and Drone dropped to my work site...

I have a dream of Drones delivering food, tools, equipment to those who pay for it as a service... no longer will we wait at the Lunch Van deciding what to eat... I will have already made my choice on my phone. The Lunch Van will simply be a deployment area for all the gourmet meals without ever having exchanged my Bitcoins because I will have chosen my lunch as a service.

When I need security it will be provided in a decentralized manner, ubiquitously everywhere. Cameras shall watch my every move, located in every home and be paid for watching my back on my request because I paid for it as a service.

politicians, lobbysts i will pay them as a service to handle my interests and those who believe what I believe as a service.

Internet shall be Decentralized available everywhere. regardless of password, i shall pay every wi-fi hotspot as a service as I walk by them everyday, and they shall transition from hot spot to hot spot seemlessly.

I shall pay for my news and services as a service, autonomous AI programmed with my specifications scouring the internet looking out for my interests and informing me... news shall be decentralized.

electricity shall be decentralized, Fuel cell technology powering my home, solar patching as it can...

in the future every Man, Woman and Child will be a Army of one, dependent on no one but themselves.

Very interesting idea but I don't think that it can really work in real world.
We will always need central governments, army, police etc.
If we will live in ideal world without wars, conflicts, borders etc. such scenario will be possible but we are not on such stage of human development.

Sounds like a movie synopsis.  Is this Avengers 2: Age of Ultron and you just spoiled it for everyone?!!

http://www.blastr.com/sites/blastr/files/who-do-you-think-will-die-in-avengers-age-of-ultron_0.jpeg

Indeed, it s a good idea but unrealistic, we would require several orders of magnitude of human evolution for that to be sustainable. And if we don't have any of these, it would mean we don't even need money anymore to begin with.

What do you mean? It's already built. You just haven't noticed it yet. :)

Something should be centralized.
Not everyone is educated.

Look at those scammers and thieves who are on always on a prowl for unsecured sites, they do it because there is no central entity that will fuck him up if he did those things.

So, we sometimes need it.

Like it or not we are heading towards a totally decentralized technological future, or at least the option of being at a totally decentralized internet.

Yes of course, the idea of decentralize everything is good but the process might be very very difficult because some people dont like to "decentralize" all the life aspect (yes I know it is hard to understand, but this is true). The freedom and the decentralization are really correlated.

I would actually like everything to be centralized, but by someone who could insure everything when using their services. In that, they charge you a fee or a monthly invoice for somewhat of an insurance.

I dont think it will be difficult. People will naturally go towards it as they keep getting scammed with with fiat (they go to bitcoin) and they keep getting spyed on (they stop using normal internet for maidsafe etc)

That almost made me sick, yuk. Don't bring that off topic crap here. Bitcoin was never meant for none of that so if that is what you really want you better run back to the fiat train bro because the future will be decentralized like it should :)

Bitcoin has no dominant control: no prime repository of information, no central management, and, what it she most important thing, no central point of failure. As you may know, most of the actual services and businesses built within the Bitcoin ecosystem are centralized I have no problem with that.
They are run by specific people, in specific locations, with specific computer systems, and they are susceptible to specific legal "difficulties".
That is the reason decentralization is so important for bitcoin and it can't fail.

What many people here seem to be missing is that decentralization has a very real additional cost associated with it which would make it uncompetitive against centralized competitors except in very specialized applications. Money is one example where decentralization has concrete benefits over centralized solutions but there aren't that many others I can think of.

Consider YouTube as an extreme example. Could we decentralize that? Well, yes, we can create a decentralized YouTube where the blockchain consists of videos that people have uploaded but the end result would be slow, cumbersome, and above all, bloody expensive. Videos on YouTube are hosted on centralized servers. While a decentralized version would be far less prone to censorship, the fact that every single video would have to copied over and over ad infinitum would mean that the resources required to host even a small collection of videos would make it very expensive to operate. Consider the electricity and bandwidth costs involved across the whole network and you can see how expensive and horribly inefficient the whole thing would be compared to its centralized rivals.

Or if you want an actual real world example, compare Freenet with the wider non-decentralized Internet. Freenet is slow and bandwidth-intensive because websites are copied over and over again and stored on many different computers around the world. In contrast, centralized websites such as YouTube and Facebook are very fast and comparatively far more efficient. Freenet does have its advantages but the wider public likely won't care.

some people don't like decentralization, because it take away the security, you need always to trust a third party with decentralized system, that's the only problem i can see, otherwise decentralization is the future

Yes of course but if you know that "part" is honest because is governed by a code and you know this code because it is open source you should not have to worry. The hack of those various exchange aren't related with the bitcoin code itself, isn't it? However I agree with you, the future is not more centalized ;).

Can you clarify this point? One of the key innovations of Bitcoin's decentralized consensus model is that it does away with the need to trust third parties in a transaction.

I think he is referring to paying using Bitcoin vs. paying using Visa or MasterCard, where the credit card company will usually refund the transaction in the event that there is fraud on the part of the seller. So to get back that assurance, you would need to use a trusted intermediary like an escrow.

Decentralization is good. No power to a single party instead all powers to everybody. But it would take more time to achieve this. But I believe this one must be the so stable model and working too....

We are headed towards it but it will take a long time for it to catch up with the general public, but people like Kim Dotcom will help to achieve it because he is really famous and he is into it.

Fiat isn't really "code" though. Even when digitized, it's an entry in a centralized database. I don't think the problem of exchanging fiat to BTC and vice versa will ever be solved in a decentralized and trustless manner for various reasons. Ripple's distributed ledger model is probably the closest thing to a decentralized fiat-BTC exchange that we can achieve right now and even so, it's not actually decentralized but instead distributed and you still need to trust the gateway that converts the IOUs into actual funds:

http://ripplefederation.org/forum/why-must-end-users-be-forced-to-trust-gateways