[davis196]

Recently we saw some country/city have legalize bitcoin which means could accelerate bitcoin adoption, let merchants accept bitcoin and let people use bitcoin without worry.
But, we also know it means bitcoin slowly become centralized because regulation, user verification, taxes and eliminate anonymous service as well.

So, which one is better, decentralized, but very slow adoption OR centralized, but mass adoption happened? To be honest, i don't know which one is better

I choose the first option.Bitcoin should be independent from governments and bank control

even with slow adoption.

If bitcoin becomes more centralized,this won`t be bitcoin anymore,it will be shitcoin.

[ObscureBean]

Personally I think we need to find some middle ground. Fighting the system doesn't really make sense because people are the system, you all are the system so it's like fighting yourself. No regulation and user verification equate to more crime, it would be harder to apprehend criminals. Is this something that is acceptable? In return for what? Does decentralization really mean freedom?

[Kprawn]

Mass adoption will be nice, but I am not going to support another centralized network to achieve that goal. You cannot run, before you

learned how to walk. We can keep things decentralized and still learn to run. The internet walked and now it's running.. The price

watchers / speculators will not agree with this slow process, but they are only in this for the short term profits. 

[franky1]

though core is trying to centralize bitcoin by being the sole controller of rule changes and treating any other implementations attempt to add new features as "an altcoin"..

lets instead deal with the other point of this topic..
mass adoption..

knowing Euro is mainstream but you cant buy anything in america with it.. even when euro's are used by more people(in europe) vs americas population combined.
knowing the pound is mainstream but only used by 70million people, which is only 1% of the world
knowing Chinese Yuan is used by a billion people (3 times american population)..
knowing that bitcoin has no borders. so there is no point in the idea of a bitcoin 'country'.

what would people rationally describe as a realistic and achievable scenario that would be defined as the point where bitcoin is "mainstream"
the only answer i can see most centralized/price rising/mass adoption now wannabe's will say is some magic number that is a FIAT value(facepalm)  twice or more times higher then the price they bought it at or twice or more times higher then the price bitcoin is now..

afterall.. a couple years ago the fiat loving centralizing mass adoption advocates said that $1000 was the magic number.. now its $2000-$600,000

what metric would anyone use to consider bitcoin mainstream?
population of users? .. if so how would you measure it
merchant acceptance?.. if so how would you measure it
value of bitcoin?

some people thing the mainstream peak is when media talk positively about bitcoin

[bitcointank]

So many vote for decentralized but slow adoption. We know the core concept of bitcoin is decentralized, it is the Satoshi Nakamoto's initial idea, so this option is the initiality of bitcoin. Actually slow adoption is better because we can buy chea[er bitcoin for enough time.

[franky1]

So many vote for decentralized but slow adoption. We know the core concept of bitcoin is decentralized, it is the Satoshi Nakamoto's initial idea, so this option is the initiality of bitcoin. Actually slow adoption is better because we can buy chea[er bitcoin for enough time.

core concept appeared in 2013, and meandered away from an open platform for anyone to join and turned into a REKT campaign to push people out that didnt follow a single minded direction of a few paid devs.

satoshi disapeared in 2011.

core and satoshi have no ties

[Denker]

Recently we saw some country/city have legalize bitcoin which means could accelerate bitcoin adoption, let merchants accept bitcoin and let people use bitcoin without worry.
But, we also know it means bitcoin slowly become centralized because regulation, user verification, taxes and eliminate anonymous service as well.

So, which one is better, decentralized, but very slow adoption OR centralized, but mass adoption happened? To be honest, i don't know which one is better

No your comment is not right!
As long as the network stays decentralized, the possibility for regulation only exists for companies who have built their service on top of Bitcoin and have their residence in those countries where regulations got issued.
No one can hinder me to use an open source, free in the internet downloadable wallet with that I can send as much Bitcoin as I want around the globe without the need of AML/KYC.

And this is the reason why Bitcoin will stay decentralized, no matter how hard some stupid CEOs are yelling to make bigger blocks just to create an artifical gateway which is in their favour.

[Steinar]

to me this is a no brainer, the entire point of crypto is to be decentralized, even if it gets mass adopted, if its controlled by one entity whats the point?

[franky1]

And this is the reason why Bitcoin will stay decentralized, no matter how hard some stupid CEOs are yelling to make bigger blocks just to create an artificial gateway which is in their favour.

you mean like Adam back(CEO) and Greg maxwell(CTO) of Blockstream. Advocating for 4mb bloat, purely to fit signatures and confidential payment codes. to push people into their gateway of sidechains and offchains, while the community cant even get 2mb of traditional transaction capacity.(yep even segwit cant expand capacity to accommodate such capacity requests).
even if some notable devs did have decentralized morals at one point multiple years ago. they are now under employment contracts and NDA's so they cannot exactly bite the hand that feeds them, and we can no longr think of them as having the same motives of pre-employment as they now have in employment.

yes the spoon fed mantra from core fanboys has lots of hypocrisy, involved.

though i do agree that regulations should exist only for businesses on the outside layers of bitcoin(fiat touching gateways). but that is why im highly against businesses getting too "handsy" and to involved with swaying the direction of bitcoin by paying dev's.