Bitcoin is Centralized!

[faaty]

Yes, I do not believe it is decentralized. Bitcoin's anarchist days are long gone.
I used to believe that Bitcoin was the gold of the modern age. That is to say, gold is seen today as a means of storing wealth, not as a means of shopping together with the invention of money; Both by people and by central banks.
In modern times, I thought that bitcoin, a digital value based on hash power, could be seen as a means of storing wealth.

But,
A thought: the gold is a certain element in the periodic table. Throughout the ages, people have tried to make gold with alchemy, though technology has not progressed so far. The only way to get gold is mining.

Bitcoin is not. As a result, it continues to be developed by a software and core team. So after they come out, they can say that bitcoin is changed from now on. Hard fork, soft fork, segwit 1,2,3,4,5 can do everything. The bitcoin in your hand can also be split into 10 forks. Contrary to gold, they can give bitcoin any shape as they wish. Powerful states and corporations, rich people, deep powers, who can control and manipulate the world by affecting the world as if they are asking the developers of the bitch.

Bitcoin core is not in one place, but I seem to hear you say it is scattered. After all, who is more likely to have the power of mining and bitcoin if he can not afford it?

Is Bitcoin a decentralized system? On the contrary, it is necessary to think about what will evolve as a central system in which your wealth is governed.

[1715095860]

1715095860

[1715095860]

1715095860

[1715095860]

1715095860

[1715095860]

1715095860

[1715095860]

1715095860

[CryptosapienZA]

With the Segwit vs Segwit 2x debate, I have come to realize that there's is an attempt to hijack control of bitcoin. To me thats what Aug 1st is all about, POWER. Its really sad that we have come to this. Time will tell which team will come out victorious.

[Juggy777]

Yes, I do not believe it is decentralized. Bitcoin's anarchist days are long gone.
I used to believe that Bitcoin was the gold of the modern age. That is to say, gold is seen today as a means of storing wealth, not as a means of shopping together with the invention of money; Both by people and by central banks.
In modern times, I thought that bitcoin, a digital value based on hash power, could be seen as a means of storing wealth.

But,
A thought: the gold is a certain element in the periodic table. Throughout the ages, people have tried to make gold with alchemy, though technology has not progressed so far. The only way to get gold is mining.

Bitcoin is not. As a result, it continues to be developed by a software and core team. So after they come out, they can say that bitcoin is changed from now on. Hard fork, soft fork, segwit 1,2,3,4,5 can do everything. The bitcoin in your hand can also be split into 10 forks. Contrary to gold, they can give bitcoin any shape as they wish. Powerful states and corporations, rich people, deep powers, who can control and manipulate the world by affecting the world as if they are asking the developers of the bitch.

Bitcoin core is not in one place, but I seem to hear you say it is scattered. After all, who is more likely to have the power of mining and bitcoin if he can not afford it?

Is Bitcoin a decentralized system? On the contrary, it is necessary to think about what will evolve as a central system in which your wealth is governed.

I can understand the frustration and you won't be alone to echo such sentiments, the problem is there is a vast amount of rumors about August 1st, that now no one really understands or like I say have gone beyond the stage where they want to understand. I yet believe come August 1st Bitcoin will be decentralized, let's hope they find a favorable solution.

[warrior333]

Sad. It turned out that the decentralization of bitcoin is only a myth. All were hostages of the situation. Maybe this will be a lesson for all and bitcoin will avoid such mistakes in the future. And now we can only wait and observe the situation.

[BitcoinHodler]

Hard fork, soft fork, segwit 1,2,3,4,5 can do everything. The bitcoin in your hand can also be split into 10 forks.

its just that at some point in time (for the reasons that i have not yet figured out) people forgot that a change no matter how small and no matter if it is called soft, hard, warm, ... should reach a consensus!

we were on a very good track not so long ago. if you read the SegWit proposal it is well though, well planned, it needs >95% support from miners then it needs node activation and then lock in and all that.

and so far all the changes have been happening like this. with a set % support, then nodes activation and lock in and ....

but this was ignored and forgotten at some point.

however this has nothing to do with "decentralization" bitcoin is still decentralized. it is just filled with people who forgot to educate themselves and came in only to make profit.

[bs.glory]

Recent interest in new forms of money such as bitcoin has arisen rather naturally from the explosion of economic activity that is closely associated, at least in popular accounts, with advances in information technology and the Internet. If we looked at from a purely technological point of view there is much to be excited about, both in terms of new supply-side innovations capable of delivering most if not all of money’s primary functions and – maybe more importantly – on the demand side, where the full use of technology’s potential will likely require the introduction of new payment systems which I believe is "CENTRALIZED". Without losing sight of the fact that technological advances are highly contingent on significant economic, social and governance changes, it is
helpful to consider what the new tools and techniques might be.

[hatshepsut93]

Yes, I do not believe it is decentralized. Bitcoin's anarchist days are long gone.
I used to believe that Bitcoin was the gold of the modern age. That is to say, gold is seen today as a means of storing wealth, not as a means of shopping together with the invention of money; Both by people and by central banks.
In modern times, I thought that bitcoin, a digital value based on hash power, could be seen as a means of storing wealth.

But,
A thought: the gold is a certain element in the periodic table. Throughout the ages, people have tried to make gold with alchemy, though technology has not progressed so far. The only way to get gold is mining.

Bitcoin is not. As a result, it continues to be developed by a software and core team. So after they come out, they can say that bitcoin is changed from now on. Hard fork, soft fork, segwit 1,2,3,4,5 can do everything. The bitcoin in your hand can also be split into 10 forks. Contrary to gold, they can give bitcoin any shape as they wish. Powerful states and corporations, rich people, deep powers, who can control and manipulate the world by affecting the world as if they are asking the developers of the bitch.

Bitcoin core is not in one place, but I seem to hear you say it is scattered. After all, who is more likely to have the power of mining and bitcoin if he can not afford it?

Is Bitcoin a decentralized system? On the contrary, it is necessary to think about what will evolve as a central system in which your wealth is governed.

I guess you don't understand what "decentralized" means, cryptocurrencies are all about consensus and open source - if you don't like the current network, you can always make your own fork with your own rules and see if other people will like it. Current majority of Bitcoin users supports Core, so it's not a problem if they have some influence. Also, it's not like developers have some master key to Bitcoin, they can't do anything to existing blockchain, no one can, they can only release new versions, and if people will not agree with it, they simply won't use it.

[Gabo]

Yes, I do not believe it is decentralized. Bitcoin's anarchist days are long gone.
I used to believe that Bitcoin was the gold of the modern age. That is to say, gold is seen today as a means of storing wealth, not as a means of shopping together with the invention of money; Both by people and by central banks.
In modern times, I thought that bitcoin, a digital value based on hash power, could be seen as a means of storing wealth.

But,
A thought: the gold is a certain element in the periodic table. Throughout the ages, people have tried to make gold with alchemy, though technology has not progressed so far. The only way to get gold is mining.

Bitcoin is not. As a result, it continues to be developed by a software and core team. So after they come out, they can say that bitcoin is changed from now on. Hard fork, soft fork, segwit 1,2,3,4,5 can do everything. The bitcoin in your hand can also be split into 10 forks. Contrary to gold, they can give bitcoin any shape as they wish. Powerful states and corporations, rich people, deep powers, who can control and manipulate the world by affecting the world as if they are asking the developers of the bitch.

Bitcoin core is not in one place, but I seem to hear you say it is scattered. After all, who is more likely to have the power of mining and bitcoin if he can not afford it?

Is Bitcoin a decentralized system? On the contrary, it is necessary to think about what will evolve as a central system in which your wealth is governed.

It could be, but it's not yet. There is time to fight for our ideals, we only need express our ideas and generate discussions, like you are doing now. It's a good beginning.
It's not easy, almost all is being centralized, in my country the government want to centralize all the transactions of fiat, in favor to them and private banks, they are obligating by law to everybody have bank accounts and make almost everyting by the banking system, their target is eliminate the cash money and ensalve people to banksters, to pay them fees, interests and more, the banks will have more money to use, without paying any interest to the real owners of that money. This brings a lot of problems, in addition to loss of privacy, freedom, property rights, and a lot of more problems.
I feel alone, because people here don't have ideals or, simply, they are dumbs. I though this community could help me to fight, but I was wrong.
I miss 2012 when I started, everybode talking about god Satoshi and their ideals, but, now, money is the god and I am the atheist in middle of this church.

[ladydark]

With the Segwit vs Segwit 2x debate, I have come to realize that there's is an attempt to hijack control of bitcoin. To me thats what Aug 1st is all about, POWER. Its really sad that we have come to this. Time will tell which team will come out victorious.

Its true that some have decided to activate segwit and its centralization of bitcoin.But its a good decision which was eagerly awaited by most of bitcoin investors so that transaction fee would get reduced and bitcoin price would go more.

[Gluestack]

With the Segwit vs Segwit 2x debate, I have come to realize that there's is an attempt to hijack control of bitcoin. To me thats what Aug 1st is all about, POWER. Its really sad that we have come to this. Time will tell which team will come out victorious.

Its true that some have decided to activate segwit and its centralization of bitcoin.But its a good decision which was eagerly awaited by most of bitcoin investors so that transaction fee would get reduced and bitcoin price would go more.

In my opinion its out of the state of the art creating a good governance with a exquisite decentralization standards. The fact is that when you make a revolution and destroy a goverment/ jurisdiction you have to create a new one sooner or later, the dilemma here is if your new order is better than the older one. Think about Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Venezuela or Cuba... they all made a revolution in the 20 century, they have their reasons to do that, but their outcomes are at least questionable.

[Przemax]

The OP post have two misunderstandings in it.

First one is that you idealise gold. Both of the assets are mined with the difference that its the bitcoin that is finite. We do not know how many gold there is to be mined. Both of those assets are being somewhat altered - there are different kind of coins, gold bars etc. etc. all of them have different price, different risks involved in buying them and such. Most of the gold is a virtual promise to pay, and those promises to pay are a subject of manipulation more than bitcoin.

Secondly, the word centralisation implies that the power distribution comes from one source. That is not true. There are many nods, many miners, and many bitcoin users. They do not agree with eachother. Just because we must come to an agreement once in a while, means that bitcoin is decentralised. Otherwise there would be no talk about the consensus, only about the orders from the above.

[senin]

The situation with the changed system of decentralization of the digital currency requires serious discussion and analysis. Has anything changed in this matter we will see after the first of August. Wait is not long. Strictly speaking, in my opinion, one can not unambiguously answer that in this case it is better: centralization, in which control over the crypto currency will be implemented not by any state or group of states, but by established leaders in this digital currency, or decentralization, which borders on anarchy.

[dothebeats]

With the Segwit vs Segwit 2x debate, I have come to realize that there's is an attempt to hijack control of bitcoin. To me thats what Aug 1st is all about, POWER. Its really sad that we have come to this. Time will tell which team will come out victorious.

It all began with the scaling debate. Actually, I'm thinking that the scaling issue is just another front that these devs use to cover up their real intentions for bitcoin. These people don't have a fixed income for continuing developments, but they would receive large grants if they gain main control of the development of the coin. The only centralization that I see here is how the development of the coin is going to work. The rest is still decentralized in one form or another.

[williamuk]

Current majority of Bitcoin users supports Core, so it's not a problem if they have some influence.

That is not true, you should refrain from making this statement.

A few thousand users use the free bitcoin desktop client but that does not mean support for Core's reckless actions.
Tens of thousands or more use bitcoin accounts on exchanges or via web wallets so even those desktop users don't mean much.

What there is is a small minority of very loud and generally abusive people who keep misleading, threatening and abusing those who dare to express their valid concerns about Core's behaviour.

[aoluain]

Yes, I do not believe it is decentralized. Bitcoin's anarchist days are long gone.
I used to believe that Bitcoin was the gold of the modern age. That is to say, gold is seen today as a means of storing wealth, not as a means of shopping together with the invention of money; Both by people and by central banks.
In modern times, I thought that bitcoin, a digital value based on hash power, could be seen as a means of storing wealth.

But,
A thought: the gold is a certain element in the periodic table. Throughout the ages, people have tried to make gold with alchemy, though technology has not progressed so far. The only way to get gold is mining.

Bitcoin is not. As a result, it continues to be developed by a software and core team. So after they come out, they can say that bitcoin is changed from now on. Hard fork, soft fork, segwit 1,2,3,4,5 can do everything. The bitcoin in your hand can also be split into 10 forks. Contrary to gold, they can give bitcoin any shape as they wish. Powerful states and corporations, rich people, deep powers, who can control and manipulate the world by affecting the world as if they are asking the developers of the bitch.

Bitcoin core is not in one place, but I seem to hear you say it is scattered. After all, who is more likely to have the power of mining and bitcoin if he can not afford it?

Is Bitcoin a decentralized system? On the contrary, it is necessary to think about what will evolve as a central system in which your wealth is governed.

I guess you don't understand what "decentralized" means, cryptocurrencies are all about consensus and open source - if you don't like the current network, you can always make your own fork with your own rules and see if other people will like it. Current majority of Bitcoin users supports Core, so it's not a problem if they have some influence. Also, it's not like developers have some master key to Bitcoin, they can't do anything to existing blockchain, no one can, they can only release new versions, and if people will not agree with it, they simply won't use it.

I think this is a good and relevant response, the key bit mentioned is "open source".

Bitcoin is finite, there is going to be only 21,000,000 its not going to be like
centralised ripple for instance where the developers release a block of tokens or coins
whenever they like. This is key.

[williamuk]

As for centralisation, let us see who invested in Blockstream, the company that employs the people at the top of Core's hierarchy: Axa.

Axa, one of the largest FIRE companies in the world, putting the likes of Goldman Sachs to shame:

Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354-500-revealed-the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world/

Axa is fourth in the list. As a typical finance company, it is not interested in the level of the currency, but in the amount of economic rent in can extract from the network every year... fees is where the big money is made.

Some decentralisation

[cnmgfb]

Yes, I do not believe it is decentralized. Bitcoin's anarchist days are long gone.
I used to believe that Bitcoin was the gold of the modern age. That is to say, gold is seen today as a means of storing wealth, not as a means of shopping together with the invention of money; Both by people and by central banks.
In modern times, I thought that bitcoin, a digital value based on hash power, could be seen as a means of storing wealth.

But,
A thought: the gold is a certain element in the periodic table. Throughout the ages, people have tried to make gold with alchemy, though technology has not progressed so far. The only way to get gold is mining.

Bitcoin is not. As a result, it continues to be developed by a software and core team. So after they come out, they can say that bitcoin is changed from now on. Hard fork, soft fork, segwit 1,2,3,4,5 can do everything. The bitcoin in your hand can also be split into 10 forks. Contrary to gold, they can give bitcoin any shape as they wish. Powerful states and corporations, rich people, deep powers, who can control and manipulate the world by affecting the world as if they are asking the developers of the bitch.

Bitcoin core is not in one place, but I seem to hear you say it is scattered. After all, who is more likely to have the power of mining and bitcoin if he can not afford it?

Is Bitcoin a decentralized system? On the contrary, it is necessary to think about what will evolve as a central system in which your wealth is governed.

Bitcoin is the gold, while people already had gold in natural world.

it is likw an advertisement, diamond is forever....but divorces is a by product of diamond too.

decentralised? liberty? outlaw? you name it

each forking is a 100% inflation...while altcoins had already diluted bitcoins

end of the day, it is just a piece of software that trying to create something is bigger than god

[AbdTstpr]

I feel alone, because people here don't have ideals or, simply, they are dumbs. I though this community could help me to fight, but I was wrong.
I miss 2012 when I started, everybode talking about god Satoshi and their ideals, but, now, money is the god and I am the atheist in middle of this church.

The end contains a very powerful image and sadly what he says is true !  

[Dunkerk40]

Current majority of Bitcoin users supports Core, so it's not a problem if they have some influence.

That is not true, you should refrain from making this statement.

A few thousand users use the free bitcoin desktop client but that does not mean support for Core's reckless actions.
Tens of thousands or more use bitcoin accounts on exchanges or via web wallets so even those desktop users don't mean much.

What there is is a small minority of very loud and generally abusive people who keep misleading, threatening and abusing those who dare to express their valid concerns about Core's behaviour.

I think we do not know the exact picture of what is happening now in the society of miners. Those news that sometimes appear do not bear the truth. We can only wait and hope that bitcoin transformations will pass quickly and imperceptibly. We can say that bitcoin is controlled by miners

[williamuk]

Current majority of Bitcoin users supports Core, so it's not a problem if they have some influence.

That is not true, you should refrain from making this statement.

A few thousand users use the free bitcoin desktop client but that does not mean support for Core's reckless actions.
Tens of thousands or more use bitcoin accounts on exchanges or via web wallets so even those desktop users don't mean much.

What there is is a small minority of very loud and generally abusive people who keep misleading, threatening and abusing those who dare to express their valid concerns about Core's behaviour.

I think we do not know the exact picture of what is happening now in the society of miners. Those news that sometimes appear do not bear the truth. We can only wait and hope that bitcoin transformations will pass quickly and imperceptibly. We can say that bitcoin is controlled by miners

In view of the last few years we can only say that bitcoin has been controlled by Core. Miners are a large group in the community, but not in control.

Despite all the misinformation we have been subjected to, in the bigger world of cryptocurrencies and finance, miners are the underdogs.