Why do people get upset about bitcoin "being centralized" ?

[rexcoin]

Hello all,

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

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

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

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

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

[1715010544]

1715010544

[1715010544]

1715010544

[1715010544]

1715010544

[1715010544]

1715010544

[1715010544]

1715010544

[FreeMoney]

There are two sorts of complaints imo:

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

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

Only one of those is a reasonable position.

[hazek]

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

That's why.

[Dalkore]

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


HERE, we are trying something different.

[jgarzik]

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

[layyen]

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

[Technomage]

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

[hazek]

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

Lets be precise shall we?

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

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

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

[BitBlitz]

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

[mobile4ever]

Hello all,


While being anonymous does have alot of benefits, but using a currency or money i dont think its a

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

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


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


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

"Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac."             - Henry Kissinger

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


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

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


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


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


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

In conclusion:

For someone to know many things about me, and me know next to nothing about them -  is not fair.

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

[Technomage]

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

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

[hazek]

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

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

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

[jgarzik]

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

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

[Polvos]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[mobile4ever]

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

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


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

[jgarzik]

The fundamental premise is flawed...

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

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

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

But even more than that, everything we've done has decreased centralization, as you can see in this post from theymos.  The dev team practices are far more inclusive, open and decentralized than during Satoshi's tenure.

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

[hazek]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Polvos]

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

Edit to add:

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

[jgarzik]

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

Edit to add:

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

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

[Polvos]

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

Edit to add:

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

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

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