It's ok to love the decentralized bitcoin but why hate the centralized one?

[Pab]

I see in the forum various post which exalt and consider as sacred the decentralization of bitcoin and in the same amount hate the same coin (if created) but which can be centralized. It is interesting to discuss about this. Being a centralized digital coin mean owned and it is normal that everyone believe that being  owned  can be manipulated.  Like the all actual fiat money.

But this reasoning, I think, have no sense in the case of digital coin like bitcoin. This kind of coin, like bitcoin, is protected from the manipulation (from everyone and everything) from the technology which will produce it. In other words, no one can change its production (amount, time between amounts, its flow in the market). So no one can change these essential things that can make possible its manipulation. Then where is the problem of this centralized digital like bitcoin coin?

It is not the case to talk about the manipulation of the market with the existing coins in it by the speculators. Because this can happen even if this coin could be decentralized.

So, the question to discus is:

Why is so sacred the decentralization of bitcoin and why hate the same product if centralized.

And if bitcoin become centralized (if there are possibilities that this can happen in a very remote future ) it will (could, must) be hated in the same way like the second centralized coins as above written?

It depends on money supply.if there is fair,transparentsupply it is ok,we can see on altocin market,decantrelised currencys with like 50% premining in top 20 market cap currencys
and than with dpos launched
Now one of centralised currency is in beta test,but it is network,with fair supply,no computing supply ,and no premine
Centralised ,no centralised everyting is possible to fraud or runing fair way

[gentlemand]

Centralisation means one authority which also equals a single point of failure and the ability to control it.

How would a centralised coin that's incorruptible work? Where does the centralisation, or any need for one, come in? Who would create something like this?

If you want a money supply that can't be messed with then there's this really cool forum you should check out...

I think what attracts people to cryptocurrencies is the knowledge that there isn't a little guy behind a leather desk who can press a button and shut you down or debase your supply.

Due to their very nature, digital currencies and centralisation aren't ever going to be a happy mix. Trustlessness for something that can be infinitely replicated or manipulated in any possible direction is vital. Its users must know that the system they're using can't be abused in that way otherwise they'll abandon it. The only way that can work is with open source programs verifiable by everyone.

[Mickeyb]

OP nobody is hating on possible centralized coins! We are just saying that this won't work and that they are wasting time, both governments and banks. At great end, we will all get to the point that people all over the world will just use decentralized solutions like Bitcoin.

Now it's their thing that they maybe see this as the only possible solution in order to not lose the complete control that they would lose if they would adopt decentralized solution.

So no, I don't hate on anybody. If nothing, these centralized solutions will prepare the population all over the world for the digital age. They will lay the infrastructure for us and instead of us.

Thanks for the comment.

You are saying that I am telling lies? Please read some of the posts in this thread.

Maybe you prefer "don't love", "are unsatisfied", "don't like", "don't prefer", "don't want", "fight", want to eliminate", "want to avoid", "want to not exist", "is a nightmare".

Are to many the other similar words that I don't remember and are to many to be used in a post. And all those, told with one only word, are "hate".

I don't think too many people hate them. People just don't understand why they need to reinvent the wheel when there is already a technology that works and in our opinion works better and it's more sustainable long-term than what they will create.

Also I can understand where the disliking is coming from some of the people on this forum. If someone don't like you than most probably you won't like him back. It's just how it goes in life.

I personally don't hate anybody and I even think that they are doing us a favor long-term by laying infrastructure instead of us and teaching people how to send transactions and use wallets instead of us.

[n2004al]

If it is centralized, then those important things in its production can be changed. The decentralized nature of Bitcoin means that every node will make sure that every block follows the rules and don't change the rules of production. But if it is centralized, then that means that some central authority sets the rules and tells everyone else what the rules are, even if they don't like the rules. With decentralization, if I don't like the rules, I can change them or go with the old ones. With centralization, someones says "these are the rules and that's that" and no one else can change that. So that means that the central authority can change the rules at their own whim and everyone that uses their coin has to follow.

Thanks for the comment.

I agree with you that this might be possible. I have a question for you. Is this situation you mentioned in your comment possible for bitcoin? If the answer can be yes and bitcoin can be manipulated you will not have more faith in it. You have faith in it because you are sure that it CANNOT be manipulated. I am asking for this kind of coin. That CANNOT be manipulated. That's why I write in my main post: "This kind of coin, like bitcoin, is protected from the manipulation (from everyone and everything) from the technology which will produce it. In other words, no one can change its production (amount, time between amounts, its flow in the market). So no one can change these essential things that can make possible its manipulation."

Do you have to make any comments having in mind THIS kind of digital coin? Why this KIND of digital coin must not have the same status as bitcoin?

In my mind, a centralized coin is one where the miners are owned by one entity, the software is developed by that same entity, and the software is closed source. In this way, should that entity decide to change the rules, they release an update, send an alert informing all users that they need to upgrade. Since the software is closed source, they can pull the old binaries and then no one can downgrade unless they saved an old version. Even using an old version would block them from the rest of the network, so those on old versions can no longer do anything. Also since it is closed source, no one (except the entity) can know what exactly goes into the mining algorithm, so that people outside cannot mine. Or they are like some PoS coins where blocks are only valid if they are signed by a select group of people. This makes it so that the users of that coin have no say about anything regarding the coin, and thus people (here) don't like it.

Good but we are at the same point like before.  I am asking about another kind of creation of the digital coin not like you mention in your second post. The not possible manipulated one. It is for that that I need your opinion. IF this kind of coin exist AND IS CENTRALIZED (from an technology that CANNOT be manipulated) what it will be your behavior? So, forget for the moment your meaning in your mind for the centralized coin and imagine this one given by me. You will like and accept it like bitcoin?

[n2004al]

Centralisation means one authority which also equals a single point of failure and the ability to control it.

How would a centralised coin that's incorruptible work? Where does the centralisation, or any need for one, come in? Who would create something like this?

If you want a money supply that can't be messed with then there's this really cool forum you should check out...

I think what attracts people to cryptocurrencies is the knowledge that there isn't a little guy behind a leather desk who can press a button and shut you down or debase your supply.

Due to their very nature, digital currencies and centralisation aren't ever going to be a happy mix. Trustlessness for something that can be infinitely replicated or manipulated in any possible direction is vital. Its users must know that the system they're using can't be abused in that way otherwise they'll abandon it. The only way that can work is with open source programs verifiable by everyone.

Thanks for the comment.

There are to many things to discus in your post but I will leave those because are out of the aim of this thread. I'm answering only to those which can do with it.

A centralized digital coin (produced in the way mentioned in man post) can work like a clock in the same way like the decentralized one. There are not any obstacle to realize this. If you know one or some it will be pleasure for to read those here written by you.

I don't see any quality in the "nature" of every kind of digital coin (produced in the way mentioned by me in my man post) which is against its being centralized. If you know some or even one such quality, I invite you to show me that (those). I will learn something new.

Where have you read (in any of my posts here) that the coin created and for the which are asked thoughts is "something that can be infinitely replicated or manipulated in any possible direction"? In this case you are talking for something that exist in your mind and not in my posts. I agree with you when you write that the "users must know that the system they're using can't be abused in that way otherwise they'll abandon it". But where have you found (in my writings) the possibility of the the existence of this option in the production of the digital coin about which I write in my pasts? Show me the phrase or the sentence. I'm obligated to tell that this is again in your mind and not in my words.

As for the last sentence, first, who told that the digital coin mentioned by me it will be made with closed source one, and second, why one closed source digital coin must be for sure and always manipulable, misused, etc. etc. To many software work excellently (or are the bests in the market) and rule the entire world even are not produced with open source (google, all the Microsoft products etc.). All they are centralized products. Why this mew one product supposed by me must be different from those?

And at the end: Have to tell something about THE MAIN POST (only for the things written there) and not for other free interpretations made from you? If yes, I will be happy to read those.

[medUSA]

There are a number of centralised altcoin as we speak, we can choose not to use or buy them and most just out right ignore them. Members here are bitcoin users or holders, we have a "stake" in bitcoin and most would not the decentralised aspect changed. I believe members here don't hate a centralised altcoin, they hate to see a centralised bitcoin.

You are one of the few which don't hate the centralized coin. So I have nothing to tell to you about my main post. But I want to know your opinion in a situation more particular. If the coin mentioned in the main post will be a national digital coin currency with legal status like the actual currency in your country (or even if can replace it) you will have the same behavior in confront of this new kind of "altcoin"?

Any government or bank can create their won centralised coin based on the blockchain technology. It's the same as the ones and zeros in my online banking account, or my payment card for public transport. The only difference is the "database" working in the background. Credit Cards are digital representation of many national currencies, I have no problem with that being centralised.

Then why hate the centralized bitcoin (if this could possible)? Nothing will change. Nothing cannot be manipulated on it (as I know).

Because a more centralised bitcoin increases the risk of control/shutdown/manipulation by a single authority. Transactions can be reversed and address blocked if a single authority controls a majority for the hashrate.

So, if the owners of the pools can make an agreement to act together in the same way, what can (will) change with this? This can be "practically" the centralization of bitcoin.

That's correct, pool owners can collude to create this "centralised cartel" and manipulate transactions. This will be damaging. The good news is they do not have incentive (yet) to collude because as soon as they were found out, those pools will loose hashrate and could result in their demise.

So what other can damage the bitcoin if become centralized? This is what I want to understand in this my comment.

Trust in Bitcoin will be damaged if it became centralised. What else will be upholding the value of Bitcoin if this trust is jeopardised?

[n2004al]

OP nobody is hating on possible centralized coins! We are just saying that this won't work and that they are wasting time, both governments and banks. At great end, we will all get to the point that people all over the world will just use decentralized solutions like Bitcoin.

Now it's their thing that they maybe see this as the only possible solution in order to not lose the complete control that they would lose if they would adopt decentralized solution.

So no, I don't hate on anybody. If nothing, these centralized solutions will prepare the population all over the world for the digital age. They will lay the infrastructure for us and instead of us.

Thanks for the comment.

You are saying that I am telling lies? Please read some of the posts in this thread.

Maybe you prefer "don't love", "are unsatisfied", "don't like", "don't prefer", "don't want", "fight", want to eliminate", "want to avoid", "want to not exist", "is a nightmare".

Are to many the other similar words that I don't remember and are to many to be used in a post. And all those, told with one only word, are "hate".

I don't think too many people hate them. People just don't understand why they need to reinvent the wheel when there is already a technology that works and in our opinion works better and it's more sustainable long-term than what they will create.

Also I can understand where the disliking is coming from some of the people on this forum. If someone don't like you than most probably you won't like him back. It's just how it goes in life.

I personally don't hate anybody and I even think that they are doing us a favor long-term by laying infrastructure instead of us and teaching people how to send transactions and use wallets instead of us.

Good. This kind of answer have meaning for me.

I have to tell only something about your bolded thoughts. If the human kind would be satisfied with the existing inventions we shall be yet in the time of the wheel mentioned by you. In other words if we will be happy with something we have and a priory will reject any other new thing without analyze that, at least, bitcoin would be yet only in the white paper of Satoshi, we will write everything only with or hands and go at work only walking. This only for the theory.

As for my post I asked about something I know they hate (from numerous posts read by me and various expressions written in to many ways but that in essence can be named as "hate") and not only for the coin. The users of this forum don't hate the new coin but the centralized one. I asked about the centralization and then for the coin. They connect the centralization (maybe have right) with the abuse, the corruption, the manipulation, the injustice and other unpleasant things had from the governments or various authorities in their countries. At least this is my guess. This their big problem are spreed even in the kind of coin they love. Not without reason I write clear and without any equivoque THE SECURITY OF PRODUCTION of this coin and not without reason give to this coin the same qualities like bitcoin. The only difference is being centralized the first and decentralized the second.

Normally if they like bitcoin have no reason to not love the second one. Who cares if have owner or not. If it is the same product and nothing change from bitcoin why not like it like bitcoin? Make no sense. The only reasonable answer TO MY POST must be: If are the same thing normally I would like it. Maybe (or for sure) bitcoin a little more because I am affectionated to it (and will give to it more support always because of this) but I would like and use even the second one because have the same qualities. Are the qualities which make the people like bitcoin. Cannot dislike the same qualities have from another product clone of bitcoin. Repeat: have no sense.

But almost no one has answered to my post. Or only partially. Everyone has answered to his post: the post in him's mind. Giving and making free interpretations connected with their hypothetical coin (or its production, or their conception of centralization) in their mind.

This is a big problem. If I want to know something I have not the answer of that I write but the answer of that the poster has in his mind about that something that I have write. This is really a big problem.

[n2004al]

There are a number of centralised altcoin as we speak, we can choose not to use or buy them and most just out right ignore them. Members here are bitcoin users or holders, we have a "stake" in bitcoin and most would not the decentralised aspect changed. I believe members here don't hate a centralised altcoin, they hate to see a centralised bitcoin.

You are one of the few which don't hate the centralized coin. So I have nothing to tell to you about my main post. But I want to know your opinion in a situation more particular. If the coin mentioned in the main post will be a national digital coin currency with legal status like the actual currency in your country (or even if can replace it) you will have the same behavior in confront of this new kind of "altcoin"?

Any government or bank can create their won centralised coin based on the blockchain technology. It's the same as the ones and zeros in my online banking account, or my payment card for public transport. The only difference is the "database" working in the background. Credit Cards are digital representation of many national currencies, I have no problem with that being centralised.

Then why hate the centralized bitcoin (if this could possible)? Nothing will change. Nothing cannot be manipulated on it (as I know).

Because a more centralised bitcoin increases the risk of control/shutdown/manipulation by a single authority. Transactions can be reversed and address blocked if a single authority controls a majority for the hashrate.

So, if the owners of the pools can make an agreement to act together in the same way, what can (will) change with this? This can be "practically" the centralization of bitcoin.

That's correct, pool owners can collude to create this "centralised cartel" and manipulate transactions. This will be damaging. The good news is they do not have incentive (yet) to collude because as soon as they were found out, those pools will loose hashrate and could result in their demise.

So what other can damage the bitcoin if become centralized? This is what I want to understand in this my comment.

Trust in Bitcoin will be damaged if it become centralised. What else will be upholding the value of Bitcoin if this trust is jeopardised?

I like more and more your answers. Are reasonable and full with truth. Really, thank you to much for giving your thoughts in this thread. I want to clarify only one thing with you. You don't like any kind of the centralization except the governative/central banks one? Or in other words. You tell that you have no problem to use a national digital coin which will be a centralized product. Then don't like the centralization as a quality in all the other option given below. That's mean that the centralization, as a quality, has to do not with the fact of being centralized in itself, but with the fact who is behind the centralization? That's correct?

[medUSA]

You don't like any kind of the centralization except the governative/central banks one? Or in other words. You tell that you have no problem to use a national digital coin which will be a centralized product.

A national currency is already centralised. My trust towards these government centralised crypto(s) comes from the government who issued them, the same trust I give to their fiat counterpart.

That's mean that the centralization, as a quality, has to do not with the fact of being centralized in itself, but with the fact who is behind the centralization? That's correct?

Partly correct. Digital tokens of existing centralised money systems are acceptable to me because we have been using them for years (bank accounts, credit cards, phonecards, supermarket points...)

A centralised crypto based on a centralised national currency offers no difference in central control. If I am already using that fiat for years, I have no problem with that centralised national crypto. When I put my savings into a bank, I have to trust that bank. The bank then issues this centralised bank crypto, the trust I have with the bank is transferred to that crypto. Same with credit cards.

Bitcoin is different. It has no trust to inherit from. That's why decentralisation is so important for bitcoin. Decentralised hash power and blockchain invokes trust in a trustless environment.

[n2004al]

You don't like any kind of the centralization except the governative/central banks one? Or in other words. You tell that you have no problem to use a national digital coin which will be a centralized product.

A national currency is already centralised. My trust towards these government centralised crypto(s) comes from the government who issued them, the same trust I give to their fiat counterpart.

That's mean that the centralization, as a quality, has to do not with the fact of being centralized in itself, but with the fact who is behind the centralization? That's correct?

Partly correct. Digital tokens of existing centralised money systems are acceptable to me because we have been using them for years (bank accounts, credit cards, phonecards, supermarket points...)

A centralised crypto based on a centralised national currency offers no difference in central control. If I am already using that fiat for years, I have no problem with that centralised national crypto. When I put my savings into a bank, I have to trust that bank. The bank then issues this centralised bank crypto, the trust I have with the bank is transferred to that crypto. Same with credit cards.

Bitcoin is different. It has no trust to inherit from. That's why decentralisation is so important for bitcoin. Decentralised hash power and blockchain invokes trust in a trustless environment.

Where is the not correct part of my sentence?  

Let me explain better. I wanted to tell exactly that you tell in the first part but in the second I had another aim and another meaning. If behind the digital coin could be an unknown group of peoples (or only one rich person) for you and create this coin (closed or open source this is not the problem in this case) you will believe this coin? I think not because behind this coin is something that has not your trust: you don't know who are they. This case is the case when we have e centralized digital coin (group of people who own this coin, or even one rich person) and you normally cannot trust this digital coin. So who is behind the digital coin is very important for you (and for everyone I think). This is the case bolded by you in my phrase and its meaning (what i wanted to tell with it).

It's ok now?  

Bitcoin is another case which have nothing to do with the entire phrase. Bitcoin is decentralized. In my phrase is told only for the various centralized cases.  

[anthonycamp]

ive been reading all this and you guys are makeing me to change a bit opinion the centrilized its just for rich but govs can take control even into un and europe i mean the taxes and the connection to banks will be bigger and btc price will rise but more diff to be anon and the core can be changed soo i stick to the btc as it is now never change just grow until 2020 then will see.

[n2004al]

ive been reading all this and you guys are makeing me to change a bit opinion the centrilized its just for rich but govs can take control even into un and europe i mean the taxes and the connection to banks will be bigger and btc price will rise but more diff to be anon and the core can be changed soo i stick to the btc as it is now never change just grow until 2020 then will see.

Thanks for the comment anthonycamp.

I'm sorry to not give my opinions to you because both us are a little out in English. So, a little you and a little me, make possible my inability to understand well your thoughts. And without this kind of understand I cannot give opinions about those. 

[okae]

Then why hate the centralized bitcoin (if this could possible)? Nothing will change. Nothing cannot be manipulated on it (as I know).

Because a more centralised bitcoin increases the risk of control/shutdown/manipulation by a single authority. Transactions can be reversed and address blocked if a single authority controls a majority for the hashrate.

human nature is ambitious and vain, always want more and more, if this were not so, there should not be any problem on a centralized one, but this is not the case, that's why i quote that answer, because i really think is the main reason, we should fix "our own problems", before think that everything is good, posible and normal.

[n2004al]

Then why hate the centralized bitcoin (if this could possible)? Nothing will change. Nothing cannot be manipulated on it (as I know).

Because a more centralised bitcoin increases the risk of control/shutdown/manipulation by a single authority. Transactions can be reversed and address blocked if a single authority controls a majority for the hashrate.

human nature is ambitious and vain, always want more and more, if this were not so, there should not be any problem on a centralized one, but this is not the case, that's why i quote that answer, because i really think is the main reason, we should fix "our own problems", before think that everything is good, posible and normal.

Thanks for the comment.

Totally agree with you. But if it will be not the human kind who will own the new (even better) "bitcoin" but the State (the Central Bank of the given country) itself what it will be your answer? The Central Bank of one country has very severe rules in the overall process of the creation and management of its money. At least administrative ones. Which cannot leave anyone to abuse even a little with everything which has to do with the money owned by it.

Accepting here (thing that is not accepted in the main post, but let's do an exception in this case) that the human kind is be able to manipulate the technology of production or other factors not allowed in the main post.

I had the answer of medUSA about this case. Now I want to understand if you will be fair in your answer or not. At least will be coherent as him in arguing your decisions and choices. Like you do in your post above.

[okae]

Thanks for the comment.

you are welcome, is a pleasure for me to give you my reply.

But if it will be not the human kind who will own the new (even better) "bitcoin" but the State (the Central Bank of the given country) itself what it will be your answer?

but here you got the problem again, banks controlled by humans... in the end you will have the same problem. who believe on banks for example? do you really think that they will not create rules who benefits them?

well you can think that people can decide if the "new" rules from banks are fair or not in this case, but just look at how it works now, everybody know that fiat money is the big ponzi scheme out there and we still using it...

that's the main problem, people are so chastened about corruption that they don't believe on anything.

how can we solved it? i mean, how people can start to realize that a centralized one is not bad?

hard to say,but maybe if they didn't get any benefit and be 100% transparent about it, maybe then, people would start to believe on it, for example...

I had the answer of medUSA about this case. Now I want to understand if you will be fair in your answer or not. At least will be coherent as him in arguing your decisions and choices. Like you do in your post above.

i hope that my new reply satisfy you now

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

OP nobody is hating on possible centralized coins! We are just saying that this won't work and that they are wasting time, both governments and banks. At great end, we will all get to the point that people all over the world will just use decentralized solutions like Bitcoin.

Now it's their thing that they maybe see this as the only possible solution in order to not lose the complete control that they would lose if they would adopt decentralized solution.

So no, I don't hate on anybody. If nothing, these centralized solutions will prepare the population all over the world for the digital age. They will lay the infrastructure for us and instead of us.

Thanks for the comment.

You are saying that I am telling lies? Please read some of the posts in this thread.

Maybe you prefer "don't love", "are unsatisfied", "don't like", "don't prefer", "don't want", "fight", want to eliminate", "want to avoid", "want to not exist", "is a nightmare".

Are to many the other similar words that I don't remember and are to many to be used in a post. And all those, told with one only word, are "hate".

I don't think too many people hate them. People just don't understand why they need to reinvent the wheel when there is already a technology that works and in our opinion works better and it's more sustainable long-term than what they will create.

Also I can understand where the disliking is coming from some of the people on this forum. If someone don't like you than most probably you won't like him back. It's just how it goes in life.

I personally don't hate anybody and I even think that they are doing us a favor long-term by laying infrastructure instead of us and teaching people how to send transactions and use wallets instead of us.

Good. This kind of answer have meaning for me.

I have to tell only something about your bolded thoughts. If the human kind would be satisfied with the existing inventions we shall be yet in the time of the wheel mentioned by you. In other words if we will be happy with something we have and a priory will reject any other new thing without analyze that, at least, bitcoin would be yet only in the white paper of Satoshi, we will write everything only with or hands and go at work only walking. This only for the theory.

As for my post I asked about something I know they hate (from numerous posts read by me and various expressions written in to many ways but that in essence can be named as "hate") and not only for the coin. The users of this forum don't hate the new coin but the centralized one. I asked about the centralization and then for the coin. They connect the centralization (maybe have right) with the abuse, the corruption, the manipulation, the injustice and other unpleasant things had from the governments or various authorities in their countries. At least this is my guess. This their big problem are spreed even in the kind of coin they love. Not without reason I write clear and without any equivoque THE SECURITY OF PRODUCTION of this coin and not without reason give to this coin the same qualities like bitcoin. The only difference is being centralized the first and decentralized the second.

Normally if they like bitcoin have no reason to not love the second one. Who cares if have owner or not. If it is the same product and nothing change from bitcoin why not like it like bitcoin? Make no sense. The only reasonable answer TO MY POST must be: If are the same thing normally I would like it. Maybe (or for sure) bitcoin a little more because I am affectionated to it (and will give to it more support always because of this) but I would like and use even the second one because have the same qualities. Are the qualities which make the people like bitcoin. Cannot dislike the same qualities have from another product clone of bitcoin. Repeat: have no sense.

But almost no one has answered to my post. Or only partially. Everyone has answered to his post: the post in him's mind. Giving and making free interpretations connected with their hypothetical coin (or its production, or their conception of centralization) in their mind.

This is a big problem. If I want to know something I have not the answer of that I write but the answer of that the poster has in his mind about that something that I have write. This is really a big problem.

Exactly, specially this part:

People just don't understand why they need to reinvent the wheel when there is already a technology that works and in our opinion works better and it's more sustainable long-term than what they will create.

Reminds me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lskpNmUl8yQ

When Letterman goes like "Oh but we have Radio, why would anyone need Radio over the internet".
People is so stupid and not prone to predict big technological shifts, that's why there will always be elites and that's why there will always be people crying that they aren't millionaires. "They don't deserve all that money". Well, if you predicted that this thing would be insanely valuable in the future instead of bashing it, you would be rich too, but you are a sheep. What's what they don't seem to understand.

[n2004al]

Thanks for the comment.

you are welcome, is a pleasure for me to give you my reply.

But if it will be not the human kind who will own the new (even better) "bitcoin" but the State (the Central Bank of the given country) itself what it will be your answer?

but here you got the problem again, banks controlled by humans... in the end you will have the same problem. who believe on banks for example? do you really think that they will not create rules who benefits them?

well you can think that people can decide if the "new" rules from banks are fair or not in this case, but just look at how it works now, everybody know that fiat money is the big ponzi scheme out there and we still using it...

that's the main problem, people are so chastened about corruption that they don't believe on anything.

how can we solved it? i mean, how people can start to realize that a centralized one is not bad?

hard to say,but maybe if they didn't get any benefit and be 100% transparent about it, maybe then, people would start to believe on it, for example...

I had the answer of medUSA about this case. Now I want to understand if you will be fair in your answer or not. At least will be coherent as him in arguing your decisions and choices. Like you do in your post above.

i hope that my new reply satisfy you now

You are not the only. Are almost all they who make posts in this thread or everywhere in bitcointalk (even out of this forum) and are convinced that everything is wrong, manipulated, bad or near the end.

To tell the right I am not one of the above. I have to many reserves about to many things but being fatalist is something that do bad only to the person who believe this. You ask if I believe in the banks. Yes, I believe. I am very satisfy with my bank even are to many things that can be better. But this don't made me to tell that everything on it is bad.

You tell that banks make the rules as they want.

First you must know that the rules (the important ones) of the commercial banks (that's the name of banks mentioned by you) are made by the Central Banks (which have not any interest in any of the commercial banks) which not only make these, but even, and above all, control their application continuously (is one the main duty of the Central Banks to do rules and to control the correct application of those in every commercial banks).

Second do you have any idea what kind of mess and crisis can have a country if the banks have the behavior you mentioned in your post? Do you have any idea of the real anarchy and chaos will cause their supposed by you behavior in all the country? Do you know that even if it will be only partially like you mention in your post EVERY STATE in the world will bankrupt within 24 hours?

The commercial banks work with money and from money their have money. So it is natural that they think for themselves first. Like you do when you do something that can make profit for you. Even this is normal. But to pretend that the banks make the rules like they want (if made by these) this cannot be never true. Because at least will be punished by the market. The concurrence from the others banks ar the customers. I will stop here for this problem because it is not this the aim of this thread.

I had your answer about my previous post and I want to turn back to the aim of this thread. Please read the main post and answer to this post. Remember: The human manipulation in the case given at the main post is excluded. So, in other words, the human being can do nothing, even if will have this desire. It is the technology which rule and this technology cannot be manipulated.

If you want, I have the curiosity to have your answer to the main post.  

[thejaytiesto]

Then why hate the centralized bitcoin (if this could possible)? Nothing will change. Nothing cannot be manipulated on it (as I know).

Because a more centralised bitcoin increases the risk of control/shutdown/manipulation by a single authority. Transactions can be reversed and address blocked if a single authority controls a majority for the hashrate.

human nature is ambitious and vain, always want more and more, if this were not so, there should not be any problem on a centralized one, but this is not the case, that's why i quote that answer, because i really think is the main reason, we should fix "our own problems", before think that everything is good, posible and normal.

Thanks for the comment.

Totally agree with you. But if it will be not the human kind who will own the new (even better) "bitcoin" but the State (the Central Bank of the given country) itself what it will be your answer? The Central Bank of one country has very severe rules in the overall process of the creation and management of its money. At least administrative ones. Which cannot leave anyone to abuse even a little with everything which has to do with the money owned by it.

Accepting here (thing that is not accepted in the main post, but let's do an exception in this case) that the human kind is be able to manipulate the technology of production or other factors not allowed in the main post.

I had the answer of medUSA about this case. Now I want to understand if you will be fair in your answer or not. At least will be coherent as him in arguing your decisions and choices. Like you do in your post above.

You never know what goes behind closed doors, which is why we need open source on everything. What we know is, corruption with public money is everywhere. Ben Bernakle can generate more money at will, the money supply is a joke, hyperinflation is destroying currencies world wide, trust in dollar is lost yearly. The model is flawed within itself. It's not really about central banks of specific countries, but big groups of countries, the big market movers... a president of a country can't do really nothing, he is subject to orders. See Greece, and coming soon Italy, Spain.. they are all subjected to superiors. It's a big pyramidal scheme. With Bitcoin no one has a clear power over the other, it's just a protocol that transfers value... this has never seen before ever in mankind, that is why it's a very hard pill to swallow.

[n2004al]

OP nobody is hating on possible centralized coins! We are just saying that this won't work and that they are wasting time, both governments and banks. At great end, we will all get to the point that people all over the world will just use decentralized solutions like Bitcoin.

Now it's their thing that they maybe see this as the only possible solution in order to not lose the complete control that they would lose if they would adopt decentralized solution.

So no, I don't hate on anybody. If nothing, these centralized solutions will prepare the population all over the world for the digital age. They will lay the infrastructure for us and instead of us.

Thanks for the comment.

You are saying that I am telling lies? Please read some of the posts in this thread.

Maybe you prefer "don't love", "are unsatisfied", "don't like", "don't prefer", "don't want", "fight", want to eliminate", "want to avoid", "want to not exist", "is a nightmare".

Are to many the other similar words that I don't remember and are to many to be used in a post. And all those, told with one only word, are "hate".

I don't think too many people hate them. People just don't understand why they need to reinvent the wheel when there is already a technology that works and in our opinion works better and it's more sustainable long-term than what they will create.

Also I can understand where the disliking is coming from some of the people on this forum. If someone don't like you than most probably you won't like him back. It's just how it goes in life.

I personally don't hate anybody and I even think that they are doing us a favor long-term by laying infrastructure instead of us and teaching people how to send transactions and use wallets instead of us.

Good. This kind of answer have meaning for me.

I have to tell only something about your bolded thoughts. If the human kind would be satisfied with the existing inventions we shall be yet in the time of the wheel mentioned by you. In other words if we will be happy with something we have and a priory will reject any other new thing without analyze that, at least, bitcoin would be yet only in the white paper of Satoshi, we will write everything only with or hands and go at work only walking. This only for the theory.

As for my post I asked about something I know they hate (from numerous posts read by me and various expressions written in to many ways but that in essence can be named as "hate") and not only for the coin. The users of this forum don't hate the new coin but the centralized one. I asked about the centralization and then for the coin. They connect the centralization (maybe have right) with the abuse, the corruption, the manipulation, the injustice and other unpleasant things had from the governments or various authorities in their countries. At least this is my guess. This their big problem are spreed even in the kind of coin they love. Not without reason I write clear and without any equivoque THE SECURITY OF PRODUCTION of this coin and not without reason give to this coin the same qualities like bitcoin. The only difference is being centralized the first and decentralized the second.

Normally if they like bitcoin have no reason to not love the second one. Who cares if have owner or not. If it is the same product and nothing change from bitcoin why not like it like bitcoin? Make no sense. The only reasonable answer TO MY POST must be: If are the same thing normally I would like it. Maybe (or for sure) bitcoin a little more because I am affectionated to it (and will give to it more support always because of this) but I would like and use even the second one because have the same qualities. Are the qualities which make the people like bitcoin. Cannot dislike the same qualities have from another product clone of bitcoin. Repeat: have no sense.

But almost no one has answered to my post. Or only partially. Everyone has answered to his post: the post in him's mind. Giving and making free interpretations connected with their hypothetical coin (or its production, or their conception of centralization) in their mind.

This is a big problem. If I want to know something I have not the answer of that I write but the answer of that the poster has in his mind about that something that I have write. This is really a big problem.

Exactly, specially this part:

People just don't understand why they need to reinvent the wheel when there is already a technology that works and in our opinion works better and it's more sustainable long-term than what they will create.

Reminds me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lskpNmUl8yQ

When Letterman goes like "Oh but we have Radio, why would anyone need Radio over the internet".
People is so stupid and not prone to predict big technological shifts, that's why there will always be elites and that's why there will always be people crying that they aren't millionaires. "They don't deserve all that money". Well, if you predicted that this thing would be insanely valuable in the future instead of bashing it, you would be rich too, but you are a sheep. What's what they don't seem to understand.

Thanks for intervention.  

First of all I'm so sorry but I cannot understand the spoken English. I'm able to communicate in English only writing. So cannot taste the video. But are enough your words to understand what the video can tell. No need to give other answer about my post. I thank you again for your comments. Feel free to comment everything in this thread or other my threads (including and firstly my thoughts). I will be happy to read what you will write. And probably to answer to you (if I will have something to tell).

[n2004al]

Then why hate the centralized bitcoin (if this could possible)? Nothing will change. Nothing cannot be manipulated on it (as I know).

Because a more centralised bitcoin increases the risk of control/shutdown/manipulation by a single authority. Transactions can be reversed and address blocked if a single authority controls a majority for the hashrate.

human nature is ambitious and vain, always want more and more, if this were not so, there should not be any problem on a centralized one, but this is not the case, that's why i quote that answer, because i really think is the main reason, we should fix "our own problems", before think that everything is good, posible and normal.

Thanks for the comment.

Totally agree with you. But if it will be not the human kind who will own the new (even better) "bitcoin" but the State (the Central Bank of the given country) itself what it will be your answer? The Central Bank of one country has very severe rules in the overall process of the creation and management of its money. At least administrative ones. Which cannot leave anyone to abuse even a little with everything which has to do with the money owned by it.

Accepting here (thing that is not accepted in the main post, but let's do an exception in this case) that the human kind is be able to manipulate the technology of production or other factors not allowed in the main post.

I had the answer of medUSA about this case. Now I want to understand if you will be fair in your answer or not. At least will be coherent as him in arguing your decisions and choices. Like you do in your post above.

You never know what goes behind closed doors, which is why we need open source on everything. What we know is, corruption with public money is everywhere. Ben Bernakle can generate more money at will, the money supply is a joke, hyperinflation is destroying currencies world wide, trust in dollar is lost yearly. The model is flawed within itself. It's not really about central banks of specific countries, but big groups of countries, the big market movers... a president of a country can't do really nothing, he is subject to orders. See Greece, and coming soon Italy, Spain.. they are all subjected to superiors. It's a big pyramidal scheme. With Bitcoin no one has a clear power over the other, it's just a protocol that transfers value... this has never seen before ever in mankind, that is why it's a very hard pill to swallow.

Thanks for your comment.

I see a big rage in your words that prove the truth of one of my posts make here in this thread. I will suffice only with few words because I don't want to give moral to anyone. It is not this the aim of this thread. I don't see the world in such way. There are problems but the problems there were, there are and there will be always. This cannot make me fatalist or even nihilistic like I think it is your case.

I would like that you read the main post and give an answer to that case expressed there. It will be a pleasure for me to give you my thoughts after your answer to that case (if I will have to tell something).

As about the case of Greece (even this out the aim of this thread) this is not a problem only of the Governments of Greece but to all the people. I have made a comment in another thread about this case. It is not complete because there are to many other things than can be told but is enough to understand all the story of the last crisis there. If you like and if you want you can read it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1210132.msg12727759#msg12727759