Greg Maxwell is now the owner of Bitcoin. That's all.

[Rahar02]

I don’t think we should reach to any kind of conclusion at this moment, things might be confusing at the moment but it would be too much hurry to jump to any conclusion. One should express your opinion but should not try to impose it on others because it might create the negative impact on others and especially newbies.

Additionally, it would be great if you quote links and add detailed view about it because the title and one word in the post are not enough to have a clear picture.

That's right,  don't be hurry to get negative conclusion,  at least we need to see the article/news of it. We don't know yet all about it, how could that happened, what impact to bitcoin, if something bad then we should be worry but if there's nothing that could be negative feedback to us, be calm down.

[erickkyut]

Greg Maxwell is the owner of bitcoin?! How come?! Is there any proof that he really is?! I thought it was Satoshi Nakamoto? Where did you get that information?

[tmfp]

Greg Maxwell is the owner of bitcoin?! How come?! Is there any proof that he really is?! I thought it was Satoshi Nakamoto? Where did you get that information?

Stop it now pls.
tia

[erickkyut]

Greg Maxwell is the owner of bitcoin?! How come?! Is there any proof that he really is?! I thought it was Satoshi Nakamoto? Where did you get that information?

Stop it now pls.
tia

Stop what? I'm curious that is why I'm asking if it is true or what. I was shocked when I read this that's why I asked. What do you want me to stop?

[tmfp]

There is no "owner of bitcoin", that was just a provocative OP to restart the never ending debate about where the real power in deciding Bitcoin's future lies.

[TKeenan]

There is no "owner of bitcoin", that was just a provocative OP to restart the never ending debate about where the real power in deciding Bitcoin's future lies.

Stop this trolling shit.  Nobody around here needs your type of reason.  This forum operates on entirely different principles and logic isn't welcome here.

[YuginKadoya]

I think his not actually the owner of bitcoin and don't conclude that he is already are in your title, he is a core developer because on contributing so much in the industry of bitcoin that is why I think certain people like you think that he is now a owner of it, I think that nobody can actually owned bitcoin and keep it for himself a large number of community is needed to increase it's value from the past so the way I think of bitcoin we are the real owners of bitcoin everyone that are holding bitcoins from their wallets and keeping it alive until now.

[tmfp]

There is no "owner of bitcoin", that was just a provocative OP to restart the never ending debate about where the real power in deciding Bitcoin's future lies.

Stop this trolling shit.  Nobody around here needs your type of reason.  This forum operates on entirely different principles and logic isn't welcome here.

[ab8989]

If I can get a significant majority of the users to use my software, then I will be in control (until someone else gets a significant majority of users to use their software).

translate, if blockstream can get a significant majority of the users to use their code, then blockstream will be in control (until someone else gets a significant majority of users to use their software,

So, to translate your translation...

Control is what the users give to whomever they want.

If the vast majority of users choose to give control to a group of people then that group of people will continue to have control for as long as the vast majority of users give them that control.

That seems a bit obvious.

Each user chooses for themselves what software to use.  If lots of users choose a single piece of software, then that software has control over what those users can do with it, and the creators of that software have control over what that software does.

That's pretty much how decentralized control is intended to work, isn't it?  Nobody has any more control than they are given by the users, and can't maintain control if the users choose to take it away.

This applies pretty perfectly also to USD and FED and so they are also perfectly decentralized. New stuff learned every day. I cannot think of anything that is not perfectly decentralized except maybe something in north korea.

But let's get back to reality. I have not heard any such definition for "decentralized control" which is intended to work like you say. "Decentralized control" is something where the system works having the control itself decentralized.

[franky1]

If I can get a significant majority of the users to use my software, then I will be in control (until someone else gets a significant majority of users to use their software).

translate, if blockstream can get a significant majority of the users to use their code, then blockstream will be in control (until someone else gets a significant majority of users to use their software,

So, to translate your translation...

Control is what the users give to whomever they want.

If the vast majority of users choose to give control to a group of people then that group of people will continue to have control for as long as the vast majority of users give them that control.

That seems a bit obvious.

Each user chooses for themselves what software to use.  If lots of users choose a single piece of software, then that software has control over what those users can do with it, and the creators of that software have control over what that software does.

That's pretty much how decentralized control is intended to work, isn't it?  Nobody has any more control than they are given by the users, and can't maintain control if the users choose to take it away.

This applies pretty perfectly also to USD and FED and so they are also perfectly decentralized. New stuff learned every day. I cannot think of anything that is not perfectly decentralized except maybe something in north korea.

But let's get back to reality. I have not heard any such definition for "decentralized control" which is intended to work like you say. "Decentralized control" is something where the system works having the control itself decentralized.

centralized control= one person/group makes the decision and everyone else either follows or they can get lost
decentralized control = everyone is equal, and if there shows a majority of consent that something should change, then it changes.

EG
centralized = one team change code and say upgrade or be paralysed, or f**koff
decentralized = every users flags a desire. if a majority show similar desires then that desire activates.

EG
softfork does not need 5700 of 6000 nodes(95%) 'permission' / consent to activate, it can function with just 2 nodes. causing the other 5998 nodes to not understanding the data that the 2 nodes are transmitting, but pass it along anyway

[groll]

Never heard his name and never know him.  So what will happen if ever that he is the owner?  I do not think he will shutdown the bitcoin and get it all.  They needed us for bitcoin to become stable in the market.  As long as there would be no harm with bitcoin I will continue to make some money through it.  I would not care whoever is the owner.

[tmfp]

Deep and meaningful contribution    Funny troll    ill thought out attempt at intellectual analysis Yobit sponsored spam.

FTFY.

[d4rkv01d]

Sounds too darmatic. As for me no one can takeover bitcoin by design

[Digitalbitcoin]

Sounds too darmatic. As for me no one can takeover bitcoin by design

Very true. No one owns bitcoin currently bcz its already announce by US government, that no can place patent for things which are already public.

So its totally worth nothing to such arguments or statements.

[Digitalbitcoin]

Sounds too darmatic. As for me no one can takeover bitcoin by design

Very true. No one owns bitcoin currently bcz its already announce by US government, that no can place patent for things which are already public.

So its totally worth nothing to such arguments or statements.

As well as Bitcoin is open source and even developer himself cannot control it, So who is Greg Maxwell. I never find or even hear this name since bitcoin born.

Many of claiming that they invent bitcoin. But everything just taking credit.

But I think its all worthless. Bcz currently Bitcoin is the only Virtual digital currency which no one can control.

[thejaytiesto]

The people on reddit /r/btc are losing their mind. They want to have a decentralized bitcoin and at the same time they want to have a big block size to have cheap onchain transactions of high volume. They still have not understood that this is not physically possible and lightning network is the best method possible to scale it to massive amounts of transactions per second. It seems they cannot deal with this fact and spend all day complaining about it and saying blockstream is the next Umbrella Corp or some shit.

[Digitalbitcoin]

The most important thing we have to understand is Bitcoin is P2P currency.

P2p stand for Peer to Peer currency. Which means that users who get into bitcoin, contribute to build strong network. As many users join this network there will be more strong network. And users embedded in system decide price of bitcoin by considering low of demand and supply.

[Digitalbitcoin]

The most important thing we have to understand is Bitcoin is P2P currency.

P2p stand for Peer to Peer currency. Which means that users who get into bitcoin, contribute to build strong network. As many users join this network there will be more strong network. And users embedded in system decide price of bitcoin by considering low of demand and supply.

I personally believe that building any cryptocurrency at initial stage is can be centralized but after certain period when it goes public no one can claim that thing independently or with group of people. Already Satoshi Nakamoto is the name behind Bitcoin. But still no one know this is one person or group of people.

[franky1]

owning bitcoin is a term to cause misunderstanding because some think bitcoin is the brand, OR bitcoin is the currency unit OR bitcoin is the network, OR bitcoin is the chain data connected to satoshis genesis block.

so
EG the BRANDNAME, was already copyrighted years ago
EG the CODE, though many teams open their code to open licence(MIT) those teams then slag off anyone who uses the code, from outside the 'team'. so although open, be prepared to be slagged off unless your willing to re-write the code from the start to follow the rules. or join the main team.
EG the CURRENCY, as long as people dont hand out their private keys, no one can own your coins on your private key
EG the CONSENSUS, is slowly being diluted down so that nodes are no longer part of voting, (softforks dont need majority nodes to vote)
EG the LEDGER, is slowly being diluted down, by fear mongers other implementations to gain one dominant implementation. which then wants other nodes to not validate and also be pruned.

decentralized:
imagine that we had 6000 nodes split up as 500 nodes per different 'team'
imagine that we had 6000 nodes where all nodes had the same validation rules

centralized
but now its 5000 under one one 'team'. where of those 5000 only 500 are validating the new rules, and only 200 of the 500 are actually storing full ledger data..

that means there are only 200 full validating nodes with full ledger history all running from one 'teams' implementation

[Digitalbitcoin]

owning bitcoin is a term to cause misunderstanding because some think bitcoin is the brand, OR bitcoin is the currency unit OR bitcoin is the network, OR bitcoin is the chain data connected to satoshis genesis block.

so
EG the BRANDNAME, was already copyrighted years ago
EG the CODE, though many teams open their code to open licence(MIT) those teams then slag off anyone who uses the code, from outside the 'team'. so although open, be prepared to be slagged off unless your willing to re-write the code from the start to follow the rules. or join the main team.
EG the CURRENCY, as long as people dont hand out their private keys, no one can own your coins on your private key
EG the CONSENSUS, is slowly being diluted down so that nodes are no longer part of voting, (softforks dont need majority nodes to vote)
EG the LEDGER, is slowly being diluted down, by fear mongers other implementations to gain one dominant implementation. which then wants other nodes to not validate and also be pruned.

decentralized:
imagine that we had 6000 nodes split up as 500 nodes per different 'team'
imagine that we had 6000 nodes where all nodes had the same validation rules

centralized
but now its 5000 under one one 'team'. where of those 5000 only 500 are validating the new rules, and only 200 of the 500 are actually storing full ledger data..

that means there are only 200 full validating nodes with full ledger history all running from one 'teams' implementation

Very depth information of basic concept of Blockchain fundamentals. Many of contracts are being used by various teams to connect nodes for open ledger to make it public. But still have some networks providing same services with centralized platforms.