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

[n2004al]

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?

[1714792352]

1714792352

[1714792352]

1714792352

[1714792352]

1714792352

[1714792352]

1714792352

[thejaytiesto]

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?

This makes no sense:

" 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."

Bitcoin is protected against the dangers of centralization because it's decentralized, so if you centralize it, it stops having said benefits...

You have to choose, decentralized or centralized. No one cares about centralized crypto currencies, because that is what fiat money is in a way. What do you think banks are? Just closed source ledgers that store numbers in a computer. The actual paper money and coins are a small %, the rest is just numbers on computers. So you might as well have it backed by math and have it open, thats why Bitcoin is better money in the digital era. You centralize it and it losses what makes it interesting.

[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.

[zodiac3011]

Decentralization and centralization are about freedom. If bitcoin is decentralized which means there are no organization or individual can manage it, do anything they want with it, you will have your freedom to do any thing you want with it. However if it is centralized, troubles will appear as organization and companies will try to control how bitcoin work which causes chaos and currency may go to a breakdown. Just imagine that centralization in cryptocurrencies is an attack, when more than 50% the total mining hashes are focused on 1 place, allowing them to alter with the transaction and many many more troubles. That's why pools don't want it to be centralized and 1 pool never crosses that 50% mining hashes of the total network

[Jimmy Russell]

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

[Amph]

because if you love decentralized, you want to support, it, how loving both will help one? yes you can continue to use both if you want

but bitcoin need to grow strong at the moment, and for this to be true, a portion of centralization must be "destroyed", sucked into bitcoin

after all bitocin, is sucking fiat value right now

[n2004al]

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?

This makes no sense.

"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."

Bitcoin is protected against the dangers of centralization because it's decentralized, so if you centralize it, it stops having said benefits...

You have to choose, decentralized or centralized. No one cares about centralized crypto currencies, because that is what fiat money is in a way. What do you think banks are? Just closed source ledgers that store numbers in a computer. The actual paper money and coins are a small %, the rest is just numbers on computers. So you might as well have it backed by math and have it open, thats why Bitcoin is better money in the digital era. You centralize it and it losses what makes it interesting.

Thanks for your comment:

First, what is the dangers of centralization? The manipulation? If you think that the being decentralized of bitcoin protect it from the manipulation I don't think so. Is the technology of production the reason of non manipulation of it and not he being decentralized. If you don't agree with this can you write here the peer to peer technology can be manipulated?

Second, can you show me what is non sense in my words in order that even me understand? I don't see any non sense in my words and any explanation in your words about my non sense in my words.

Third, If the country where you live create a digital coin (like bitcoin - the only difference is that is centralized and not decentralized like bitcoin) which have legal status and become national currency in you country (beside or without your actual national fiat money)  and with this coin give your salary to you what do you do? Will refuse your salary?

Four, why I have to choose decentralized or centralized? Why I cannot choose both? The banks can use both those.

[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?

[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.

[n2004al]

Decentralization and centralization are about freedom. If bitcoin is decentralized which means there are no organization or individual can manage it, do anything they want with it, you will have your freedom to do any thing you want with it. However if it is centralized, troubles will appear as organization and companies will try to control how bitcoin work which causes chaos and currency may go to a breakdown. Just imagine that centralization in cryptocurrencies is an attack, when more than 50% the total mining hashes are focused on 1 place, allowing them to alter with the transaction and many many more troubles. That's why pools don't want it to be centralized and 1 pool never crosses that 50% mining hashes of the total network

Thanks for the comment.

I don't understand well what does it mean your expression: "you will have your freedom to do any thing you want with it". But a part the meaning of the previous sentence why the centralized one if created in the same way (exactly in the same way) cannot have such quality you have in mind?

Your comments mention "troubles will appear". Why will appear if will be create EXACTLY LIKE BITCOIN. So it will be the same technology which will control everything and no one others. The only difference between both will be that bitcoin have no owners while the second will have owner. But this owner have no one power in everything what have to do with the production of this coin.

What about this situation (which is the one supposed at the main post)?

Then what can be happen to the bitcoin if one pool gain more than 50% of hash power? What does it mean for bitcoin? Will be not anymore decentralized? If this is possible bitcoin will be not more reliable as it is actually?

[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

Thanks for the comment.

Good. You hate the governative currency digital coin. But if the new coin will be like bitcoin (as it is mentioned in the main post; in other words anonymous in the same way and mass) you will like it even if it will be a governative currency?

If you will have your wage in this kind currency you will refuse that money?

[anthonycamp]

thats precicely my point the fact of gov take over its might come to a btc tax but the rise price will be enourmouse soo even not anon the centrilizer banks can take control of it and make it go 1000$ and put some legitimacy on it a can take good care of any btc centrilized or decentrilzed as it is.

[n2004al]

because if you love decentralized, you want to support, it, how loving both will help one? yes you can continue to use both if you want

but bitcoin need to grow strong at the moment, and for this to be true, a portion of centralization must be "destroyed", sucked into bitcoin

after all bitocin, is sucking fiat value right now

Thanks for the comment.

I understand you point of view and accept it totally. But if both coins can (will) exist together (if this it will be possible) you will hate again the new one? If yes can you explain why?

[Jimmy Russell]

If a government ever launched a coin, it would absolutely not be anonymous, there would be no privacy at all.

I would ofcourse still accept my wages in it, if it was the accepted medium of exchange for my country, If anything to blend in as one of the sheep.

Most of my wealth will be in anonymous & decentralized crypto long before this scenario even becomes reality though.

[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.

Thanks for the comment.

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"?

Then why hate the centralized bitcoin (if this could possible)? Nothing will change. Nothing cannot be manipulated on it (as I know). 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. But, leaving apart the control of amount of fees for every transaction, they cannot control nothing else. Even if these fees will go very high, the people will  decrease the use of bitcoin and they will lose users. So the fees will be lowered again. So what other can damage the bitcoin if become centralized? This is what I want to understand in this my comment.

[n2004al]

thats precicely my point the fact of gov take over its might come to a btc tax but the rise price will be enourmouse soo even not anon the centrilizer banks can take control of it and make it go 1000$ and put some legitimacy on it a can take good care of any btc centrilized or decentrilzed as it is.

Thanks for the comment.

Sorry but I cannot well understand what you want to tell with your post. So I cannot give a sure comment (thoughts) about it.

Anyhow I'm trying to write something guessing your answer. If you think that "government can take the control of bitcoin" you are in big wrong. First who can be this government? There are more than 200 governments in all the world. Which one will (can) do this thing?

Leaving apart this I think that no one will be able to take the control of it. For several reasons. First of all because it is produced by all the world and no one can control the people who produce it. Then it will be hard to chose the government which will do this thing. Third this government must buy enormous amounts of bitcoin to be able to own really it and to use it as it want. Can be even other reasons that I can't know or that for the moment I don't remember.

[n2004al]

Why i hate fiat ?

Because we have seen many proof that fiat is full of scam, corruption, manipulation, high fees & won't work without good central bank or government.
That's why i have fiat & love bitcoin because it's not manipulateable, has low fees & work without central bank or government.

But, it doesn't mean i hate anything centralized-based. There are few things which won't work with decentralized system or better with centralized system.

Thanks for the comment.

No one asked about the fiat money (the fiat money actually in circulation) but for a digital coin like bitcoin (in everything) but which is centralized and not decentralized like bitcoin. You mentioned in your post that are few things that work better with centralized system. Is (can be) this digital coin one of things that can work not better but normally with the centralized system (being centralized)?

[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.

[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".

[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.