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

[silverleafy]

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?

Such a coin cannot exist. A clone of bitcoin, by nature, is decentralized. Even with centralized development of a bitcoin clone, it isn't centralized. People can clone the software and essentially fork that coin away from the centralized developers, so it isn't centralized. You need to define what makes that coin centralized.

[1714003363]

1714003363

[1714003363]

1714003363

[1714003363]

1714003363

[CoinHopper]

If there's a central controller of bitcoin, people will think someone is manipulating them when the price of bitcoin jumps. With a decentralized format, noone controls, and noone can manipulate.

[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?

Such a coin cannot exist. A clone of bitcoin, by nature, is decentralized. Even with centralized development of a bitcoin clone, it isn't centralized. People can clone the software and essentially fork that coin away from the centralized developers, so it isn't centralized. You need to define what makes that coin centralized.

Let's tell that you are wrights for the first part in bold. I don't want to discuss about this your conviction because it is not interesting for the aim of this thread.

As for the second part in bold I am talking about a digital coin created after the study of the bitcoin and the blockchain. This new digital coin, that should be based at the best characteristics of the lasts ones, should be based on the peer to peer technology, should have the same qualities or even more better ones than bitcoin will be produced only in one point or several ones (can be to many) all owned by one person, a group of peoples or an Central Bank. That are the investors for every step mentioned above and for every point where this coin will be produced. And naturally, even its owners.

[n2004al]

If there's a central controller of bitcoin, people will think someone is manipulating them when the price of bitcoin jumps. With a decentralized format, noone controls, and noone can manipulate.

Thanks for the comment.

Your answer have nothing to do with the words written at the main post. Please read it again (if you want) and give an answer to that post. This post ask abut something totally other and don't talk at all about the centralization of bitcoin.

[medUSA]

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...)

Where is the not correct part of my sentence?  

It's not that it's incorrect, it's not capturing the "parent-child" relationship and the deterioration of decentralisation in a dynamic process.

I am not against a new centralised crypto created based on an existing centralised payment system, there is no change in centralisation. The crypto is merely an extention of the previous system because it's already centralised before, irrespective of "who".

I am against a decentralised crypto dynamically moving towards a centralised environment, also irrespective of "who".

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.  

That explains it. Yes, it does not apply to existing decentralised cryptos.  

[n2004al]

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...)

Where is the not correct part of my sentence?  

It's not that it's incorrect, it's not capturing the "parent-child" relationship and the deterioration of decentralisation in a dynamic process.

I am not against a new centralised crypto created based on an existing centralised payment system, there is no change in centralisation. The crypto is merely an extention of the previous system because it's already centralised before, irrespective of "who".

I am against a decentralised crypto dynamically moving towards a centralised environment, also irrespective of "who".

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.  

That explains it. Yes, it does not apply to existing decentralised cryptos.  

A little hard for me to understand your explanations. My not native English and your "complicated" and "sophisticated" explanations make me to formulate in another way my part in bold.

It will be reliable for you a centralized digital coin (with the same or better qualities like bitcoin), created from an investment of one rich person or group of peoples (investors) which will be not only the producers of it (will create and own the only pool or the various pools of mining of the digital coin) but even its owners? Do you use you such kind of digital coin if it will be in the market?

[addy boy]

Bitcoin is one such
phenomenon, with its quasimythical origins, ground breaking
software, and fairly obvious potential, however to date early
adopters outside of the
murky world of sites such as Silk Road, the now defunct online drug store (watch out
for Silk Road 2, origins unknown),
have been few and far between.

Bitcoin’s somewhat seedy reputation
has been cemented by the seizure of
Silk Road, the bankruptcy of the Mt.Gox exchange, which at one point
was handling 70% of all Bitcoin
transactions, the extreme volatility
of the online currency, and concerns regarding  safety and
online theft.
Like any other fiat currency,

however, Bitcoin’s do not simply
disappear into thin air, and the US
government has done more than
anyone to restore their reputation,
successfully auctioning off Bitcoins
seized from Silk Road in much the
same way that the Miami vice squad
might auction a speedboat seized as
part of a drugs raid.

[n2004al]

Bitcoin is one such
phenomenon, with its quasimythical origins, ground breaking
software, and fairly obvious potential, however to date early
adopters outside of the
murky world of sites such as Silk Road, the now defunct online drug store (watch out
for Silk Road 2, origins unknown),
have been few and far between.

Bitcoin’s somewhat seedy reputation
has been cemented by the seizure of
Silk Road, the bankruptcy of the Mt.Gox exchange, which at one point
was handling 70% of all Bitcoin
transactions, the extreme volatility
of the online currency, and concerns regarding  safety and
online theft.
Like any other fiat currency,

however, Bitcoin’s do not simply
disappear into thin air, and the US
government has done more than
anyone to restore their reputation,
successfully auctioning off Bitcoins
seized from Silk Road in much the
same way that the Miami vice squad
might auction a speedboat seized as
part of a drugs raid.

In which world do you live you addy boy? Do you know that this post can be considered as spam here? And this can make possible your ban from the forum? It is out of everything and have no any meaning. Watch to yourself and ask: what I am doing?

Anyhow I am trying to bring you in Earth. Read very well the main post and if have something to tell about what is written there will be welcomed to write here your thoughts about that post.

Do a search within yourself and stay in peace. Hope that you will find good reasons and right meanings to understand well what you have written in your post and what I am answering to you.

After the bots Bitmixer are presenting another phenomenon. Who knows which kind of surprises will offer in the future this site....

[zimmah]

A centralized digital currency/gov coin is a fucking nightmare
Everything you earn, buy & sell will be controlled and spied on, you will be nothing more than a taxed livestock

exactly, it would be even easier to control than the dollar, which would be absolutely horrible for freedom.

imagine a coin where they can trace all your transactions, control the supply and instantly freeze your account and your ability to buy/sell anything.

if such a coin would become a global standard, we are literally less free than slaves.

don't like the government? How about you can't buy groceries anymore?

[n2004al]

A centralized digital currency/gov coin is a fucking nightmare
Everything you earn, buy & sell will be controlled and spied on, you will be nothing more than a taxed livestock

exactly, it would be even easier to control than the dollar, which would be absolutely horrible for freedom.

imagine a coin where they can trace all your transactions, control the supply and instantly freeze your account and your ability to buy/sell anything.

if such a coin would become a global standard, we are literally less free than slaves.

don't like the government? How about you can't buy groceries anymore?

Thanks for the comment.

Where have found you in the main post the the centralized digital coin is a "government" coin? Can you show here the exact sentence in which is expressed such thought?

Then another question. Why use you the dollar or every kind of "governmental" money (in my country the money is controlled by the Central Bank and not from Government)? Why don't you live without those? Maybe you can use the barter system. It could be not controlled so easy from the Government and you will be more free.