If Bitcoin changes it's because of centralized? So, if the majority of people invested in Bitcoin (Users, miners, nodes, exchanges, wallets, other businesses, etc.) decide to get together and make changes to Bitcoin, that makes it centralized? Is that what you're saying? I call that a consensus.
If consensus can be anything else but agreeing on immutability, it means that a large majority is colluding to change, and agree to the same change. That's exactly what centralization is about: an entity (a single entity, or a collusion of sufficient different entities) capable of modifying the system's past and/or past agreed-over rules.
Consensus is a mechanism by which one agrees once and for all on the past (rules including) and this doesn't change any more.
Bitcoin will change or it will be replaced and die.
If it was well-designed, no, it will find its niche. If it contains too many errors of principle, yes (I'm inclined to think that, but a niche is not impossible either, and I think it is quite obvious what it is). But there's nothing dramatical about that. Species get extinct too, because they are replaced by other species (for instance, their descendants).
I don't understand why you can't comprehend that? Your line of thinking is fallacy, if you really believe it, its time to leave Bitcoin. We don't need people like you holding back progress with your antiquated notions of how Bitcoin should operate and what it should be.
What makes you think I'm "in bitcoin" ? I'm not saying how bitcoin SHOULD operate, I'm telling you how IT OPERATES. There's no "should". There is how it really works. Nobody can decide how it "should be", because it was designed that way, that nobody can decide that. Even though its creator didn't understand that himself (or did so, and told you something else).
I'm interested in the bitcoin experiment as a dynamical system. I used it as a currency, and sometimes do still. I don't play greater fool games though (what is called "investment" over here). I think it is badly designed, but nevertheless, contains interesting quirks, and one of those quirks is exactly what you are denying about it: its immutability dynamics.
You're like the old guy in the checkout line at the grocery store who writes a check instead of using a debit card, give me a break
Open your eyes. Bitcoin's not capable of solving its "scaling problem" (which is not even a problem). People are quibbling over this for more than 2 years, and that "quibbling and not being able to find a solution" is exactly what immutability is about. Which doesn't mean that bitcoin hasn't gotten a niche. It is a reserve currency for sleazy undercover big business, that can be used as a collateral for everything which cannot see the daylight or law. It doesn't need to scale for that. There's enough room on the block chain for that. It is not a "currency to be used on the internet" though, as they made you to believe, so that you would finance this joke in a greater-fool game. It has been designed as a highly speculative asset, of which the core value is that it will not change, that no vote or whatever will ever be able to change a single iota to what it is, and that allows big boys to do their dirty things while an enthusiastic blinded crowd finances the huge waste of energy that is necessary to keep it in the hands of an oligarchy that has invested enough into it that they wouldn't step aside for murder to keep their investment running. I don't know whether Satoshi knew he designed this, or whether he was totally mistaken about that, but that is what bitcoin is about: big sleazy business reserve currency.
So after how many years of "impasse" will you be convinced that this "impasse" is by design ?
