I don't like the idea of governments holding millions of Bitcoins.

[Abiky]

Tampering with Bitcoin’s censorship resistance would be extremely difficult. It would basically require buying off or influencing a majority of developers and somehow changing the consensus rules or mining algorithm. Considering how decentralized and transparent the system is, that’s almost impossible to achieve. That’s the main reason censorship resistance is one of Bitcoin’s strongest features and why its value and concept is so different from a centralized system like PayPal.

Bitcoin is censorship-resistant for now. But what if big companies, governments, and institutional firms run their own nodes and/or miners? Since they have a lot of capital and resources, they can make a big difference on the network. And with mining pools being centralized, we should expect the worse.

I believe solo mining is the only decentralized way to truly-defend Bitcoin against a 51% attack. But I could be wrong. Developers can come up with a solution to prevent mining pool centralization, though. That way, Bitcoin will be more resilient against manipulation from "big players". Governments and institutions are amassing a large portion of the circulating supply with the hopes of "owning" it all. So long as the rest holds a greater portion of the supply, there should be nothing to worry about.

[Satofan44]

Bitcoin is censorship-resistant for now. But what if big companies, governments, and institutional firms run their own nodes and/or miners? Since they have a lot of capital and resources, they can make a big difference on the network. And with mining pools being centralized, we should expect the worse.

Nothing would change. This is not Ethereum and this is not Solana. The amount of resources and concentrated, sustained effort that would require to censor a network like Bitcoin is ridiculous. It is not even worth a consideration at this point of time other than in what if discussions. These things are funny because there is always FUD. If the big guys are not involved, then it is bad for some reasons. If they are involved, then it is also bad for some other reasons. There is never a "things are fine how they are, at least for now" scenario for people who succumb to FUD.

I believe solo mining is the only decentralized way to truly-defend Bitcoin against a 51% attack. But I could be wrong. Developers can come up with a solution to prevent mining pool centralization, though. That way, Bitcoin will be more resilient against manipulation from "big players".

There are no good ways that you can force people into solo mining, and as such this technique offers no protection against a 51% attack. You can solo mine, but you can't force others to do it.

Governments and institutions are amassing a large portion of the circulating supply with the hopes of "owning" it all. So long as the rest holds a greater portion of the supply, there should be nothing to worry about.

There is nothing to worry about, at least for now.

[KiaKia]

Tampering with Bitcoin’s censorship resistance would be extremely difficult. It would basically require buying off or influencing a majority of developers and somehow changing the consensus rules or mining algorithm. Considering how decentralized and transparent the system is, that’s almost impossible to achieve. That’s the main reason censorship resistance is one of Bitcoin’s strongest features and why its value and concept is so different from a centralized system like PayPal.

Bitcoin is censorship-resistant for now. But what if big companies, governments, and institutional firms run their own nodes and/or miners? Since they have a lot of capital and resources, they can make a big difference on the network. And with mining pools being centralized, we should expect the worse.

I believe solo mining is the only decentralized way to truly-defend Bitcoin against a 51% attack. But I could be wrong. Developers can come up with a solution to prevent mining pool centralization, though. That way, Bitcoin will be more resilient against manipulation from "big players". Governments and institutions are amassing a large portion of the circulating supply with the hopes of "owning" it all. So long as the rest holds a greater portion of the supply, there should be nothing to worry about.

Trump son, the vice president is running a Bitcoin mining farm in the U.S, I heard about this from a relative friend in the country, they are really going after Bitcoin for their own reasons.

There is no way things won't get worse from here in terms of market manipulation but that 51% attack isn't possible anymore, I don't think they can pull that stunt on miners, many businesses are relying on this and Trump family want to turn this as family business.

I am somehow glad that Bitcoin was already in circulation before these people, imagine all this is happening at the very beginning of Bitcoin life, it would have been a total nightmare.

[d5000]

Tampering with Bitcoin’s censorship resistance would be extremely difficult. It would basically require buying off or influencing a majority of developers and somehow changing the consensus rules or mining algorithm. Considering how decentralized and transparent the system is, that’s almost impossible to achieve.

I still agree with that, from the point of view of now (2025).

But you don't need to bribe developers for that. Just hire developers to create your own variant of the Bitcoin client, for example with a blacklist mechanism, or an anti-CoinJoin feature. Then convince miners that they should run your client, because otherwise the US/any other government would dump all their coins, Bitcoin would crash, and your mining hardware would be worthless.

Impossible? Yes, if the following "censorship resistance agreement" in the community still is strong:

1) cypherpunks are still influential in the Bitcoin community and among hodlers, and continue to advocate for censorship resistance.
2) miners are following cypherpunks' decisions because they believe that cyperpunk's views are essential for Bitcoin's long term health
3) and the "passive" users (BTC and ETF holders who are only in "for the profit" and don't care about censorship) are not strong enough to revert the "cypherpunk-miner consensus".

If any of these three elements begin to weaken, then the problems I mentioned in the OP may appear. They don't have to. But it wouldn't be impossible in this case to break the "censorship resistance agreement".

Regarding solo mining, I think it's overrated as an anti-censorship mechanism. I have read elsewhere that the best strategy is to join a small to mid-sized pool.

[leonair]

-

What do you think? I added a poll also with an intermediate scenario like the one announced by Trump, which would lead to a couple of hundred thousands of BTC hold by states, but not millions.

I stand in the same point of view as you regarding the dislike of the government's ideas holding millions of Bitcoin because in my opinion they can do with the strength they have. For parties outside the government will feel difficult. An imbalance will also be the thing that will be felt with the amount of Bitcoin remaining from the total.
But if I think long, this is not an obstacle that will make Bitcoin road in other words will not 'die' even though the scenario is like that.

What are you talking about, the government's personal investment or the country's reserve fund investing in Bitcoin? If the government invests its personal money in Bitcoin, then that is its personal matter and it can do that. But if it invests the money of the people of the country in Bitcoin on its own decision, then I will also dislike it. Bitcoin is not a stable coin, so holding millions of Bitcoins through the country's reserve money is crazy.  Money has to be used for the development of the country, and Bitcoin is a long-term investment, so in that case, the country could suffer economic losses if it holds millions of Bitcoins.