Which kind of centralisation is best?

[Iranus]

After having a look at how desperate everyone is for each viewpoint to go through, I've concluded that in all situations they're arguing for a type of centralisation and against another type of centralisation.

BU's increased amount of data on the blockchain means that running full nodes would become impractical for ordinary users as the amount of Bitcoin transactions would increase much faster than how much data Bitcoin users are willing to download to run a full node.

The Lightning Network (a potential development of SegWit) would result in transactions being done largely offchain and essentially centralised into huge transactions.

Staying as we are now without scaling would result in the centralisation of users because it won't be practical for people to spend any small transactions on the Bitcoin network, therefore making the users have to be wealthier.

Switching to Ethereum would equate to acceptance of a centralised development team without a real immutable/high-consensus based network and would also mean that the supply of new money can be controlled, removing Bitcoin's scarcity.

What's your favourite kind of centralisation?

[unamis76]

No centralization is good or "the best kind".

BU's increased amount of data on the blockchain means that running full nodes would become impractical for ordinary users as the amount of Bitcoin transactions would increase much faster than how much data Bitcoin users are willing to download to run a full node.

The blockchain isn't going to skyrocket in size or have way more transactions overnight.

[Kprawn]

What about you add .... centralization when people opt to use centralized services to bypass the limitations of Bitcoin. Example : Xapo

Some people will still use "centralized" services, no matter what happens to address the scaling problems. We will see people using off-chain

solutions to overcome Bitcoin's limitations. We will never get away without some centralization coming into play. { centralized wallet providers or

Bitcoin exchanges.... you name it. } 

[Iranus]

No centralization is good or "the best kind".

My point is that every time openly talks about how terrible someone else's solution is, they ignore their own.  There are flaws in all of them and they all lead to some kind of centralisation.  That's the light people should be viewing this in.

BU's increased amount of data on the blockchain means that running full nodes would become impractical for ordinary users as the amount of Bitcoin transactions would increase much faster than how much data Bitcoin users are willing to download to run a full node.

The blockchain isn't going to skyrocket in size or have way more transactions overnight.

The amount of transactions on the network has been steadily rising for a long time.  If transactions are more convenient, the transaction volume will rise faster.  If it's on the LN it won't result in it being harder to run full nodes, but the LN's transactions themselves are centralised.