Is Bitcoin truly decentralized?

[Gabo]

Since segwit, I don't know. I'm concerned about DCG

[BeGoods]

Yes, truely Bitcoin is decentralised. Because Bitcoin is not having any central control. It's having freedom . It's not having any information repository. so Bitcoin is decentralised one.

Thats true, no controls in bitcoin. The proof you have full control over the bitcoin you have in your wallet. You are free to do anything in bitcoin without any prohibition from any party, and that is included in decentralization, but the risk is certainly no one to be your complaint if exposed to problems, because the bitcoin is decentralized

[zPanda]

Nothing is purely decentralised.

[pentol86]

i think bitcoin isnt decentralized, because the rules decision from all miners.

[Pattart]

Yes, truely Bitcoin is decentralised. Because Bitcoin is not having any central control. It's having freedom . It's not having any information repository. so Bitcoin is decentralised one.

I think it's been proven that bitcoin is decentralized, you're free to trade for any purpose, even if it's illegal and without intervention from anyone. You keep your own bitcoin without any government or dev intervention, I think it's proved that bitcoin is decentralized

[Kodok Bencot]

Of course, this is because until now there has been no person or agency that states officially can control the bitcoin, so it can be said that Bitcoin truly decentralized.

[pinkpanther03]

The government in all countries are dreaming to control all bitcoin community in the entire world. But why they can't do anything about it to control it? it is because each government in the whole world are being categorize in centralization, while bitcoin was decentralization, that's the reason why bitcoin is can't be control by any of the officials of the government. and it is the reason why? we the bitcoin enthusiast are the bank of our bitcoin/altcoins.

[Wind_FURY]

Bitcoin is less decentralized than it used to be but it is still good enough. The hard fork to BitcoinCash is more or less a proof that there are powerful people and miners in Bitcoin who are very unhappy with the direction of the network that all they can do is hard fork away instead of gaining control.

We all know miners want bigger blocks. If the network was centralized, we would have bigger blocks by now

We already have bigger blocks by now

I refer to Bitcoin Cash obviously. This could be thought of as a nice workaround instead of a direct attack against original Bitcoin which would likely hurt it seriously if not kill it on the spot. In other words, the network is centralized (at least, was before the split) but the miners chose by far less risky way to exert their influence since, as I already said, exerting this influence directly would most certainly wreak havoc in Bitcoin, thereby killing the golden goose that Bitcoin has been for the last couple of years

But I refer to "if the network was centralized" then the whole network would have big blocks by now. That is why I said that to some boundary, Bitcoin is still decentralized. No one entity has 100% control over the network.

[deisik]

Bitcoin is less decentralized than it used to be but it is still good enough. The hard fork to BitcoinCash is more or less a proof that there are powerful people and miners in Bitcoin who are very unhappy with the direction of the network that all they can do is hard fork away instead of gaining control.

We all know miners want bigger blocks. If the network was centralized, we would have bigger blocks by now

We already have bigger blocks by now

I refer to Bitcoin Cash obviously. This could be thought of as a nice workaround instead of a direct attack against original Bitcoin which would likely hurt it seriously if not kill it on the spot. In other words, the network is centralized (at least, was before the split) but the miners chose by far less risky way to exert their influence since, as I already said, exerting this influence directly would most certainly wreak havoc in Bitcoin, thereby killing the golden goose that Bitcoin has been for the last couple of years

But I refer to "if the network was centralized" then the whole network would have big blocks by now. That is why I said that to some boundary, Bitcoin is still decentralized. No one entity has 100% control over the network.

Which Bitcoin do you refer to specifically?

I made it clear that I meant the Bitcoin Cash network (as I wrote right away). But this is in fact irrelevant since in a few months we will likely have large blocks in the main chain as well anyway. Would it mean that by then we will have network centralized? Regardless, to exert control over something, you typically don't have to control 100% of it. It is usually a lot less than that, and sometimes even less than 50%

[illyiller]

I think it's been proven that bitcoin is decentralized, you're free to trade for any purpose, even if it's illegal and without intervention from anyone.

Tell that to the customers of BTC-e, or Alphabay. Fungibility is not ideal in bitcoin; you need to be very careful spending your UTXOs in order to avoid linking your identity to transactions somewhere along the way. Hopefully Tumblebit will help with this, but I'm not sure how far away we are from seeing a working implementation for Bitcoin.

Mining is arguably somewhat centralized (but that is neutralized by incentive). I'm more concerned about privacy than anything else at this point.

[Webetcoins]

Maybe from some countries have a way with the ability to control all the coins in the US so completely decentralized bitcoin on the direction of the network that can hold larger blocks have but it would be difficult to gain control of coin bitcoin. so not being able to be a coin bank that we have

i believe bitcoins have a decentralized nature. Nobody has a 100% control over bitcoins. Considering the idea that some countries may have the capacity to control all fiats is absolutely right but in case of crypto currencies same countries do not stand a chance. They wish they can control it.

[Hydrogen]

Decentralization is an extremely relative term. If we proposed to measure the degree of btc's decentralization using some metric, what unit of measurement would we use? Abstractions relating to decentralization and similar concepts are prone towards being vague and ambiguous rather than an exact science.

Bitcoin's degree of decentralization is also in flux and constantly changing. If russia or another nation devoted resources towards bitcoin mining things could easily become more decentralized or the opposite could happen in the future.

[szpalata]

Maybe from some countries have a way with the ability to control all the coins in the US so completely decentralized bitcoin on the direction of the network that can hold larger blocks have but it would be difficult to gain control of coin bitcoin. so not being able to be a coin bank that we have

i believe bitcoins have a decentralized nature. Nobody has a 100% control over bitcoins. Considering the idea that some countries may have the capacity to control all fiats is absolutely right but in case of crypto currencies same countries do not stand a chance. They wish they can control it.

Exactly, it is decentralized but it isn't fully decentralized as we'd want it because there are people with huge sums of it and miners with great hashing powers who will do anything to centralize the network to their advantage .

[deisik]

Decentralization is an extremely relative term. If we proposed to measure the degree of btc's decentralization using some metric, what unit of measurement would we use? Abstractions relating to decentralization and similar concepts are prone towards being vague and ambiguous rather than an exact science

We could draw a few analogies here

For example, the value of decentralization for a PoS coin would be wealth distribution, i.e. how many coins each holder has relative to the total number of coins mined or circulated. If everyone and his grandma have the same number of coins that would make a nicely decentralized coin. Obviously, it is not as easy in respect to a PoW coin. But here we can proceed from what the stake in a PoS coin may mean in a PoW coin. That seems to be the hashing power distribution, i.e. how much hashing power every miner (mining pool) has in respect to total available hashing power. I guess that would cut it pretty close to being a viable metric for assessing (de)centralization of a PoW coin

[Catmony]

Anybody can start mining bitcoin to gain dominance over chinese miners, Bitcoin mining is free for everyone.

Bitcoin is open source so anybody can come up with their own version of software or solution for problems related to bitcoin network. I think you are talking about bitcoin core team, They have done really good work till now and majority of community follows them that's why they seem to be only developer behind bitcoin but that is not true.

[seattletu]

Anybody can start mining bitcoin to gain dominance over chinese miners, Bitcoin mining is free for everyone.

Bitcoin is open source so anybody can come up with their own version of software or solution for problems related to bitcoin network. I think you are talking about bitcoin core team, They have done really good work till now and majority of community follows them that's why they seem to be only developer behind bitcoin but that is not true.

Yes since the bitcoin is open source , all most any one can develop their own versions of block chain.So I don't think it can be controlled by some specific mine groups.So Bitcoin is certainly a decentralized system for sure.

[hovrah]

Anybody can start mining bitcoin to gain dominance over chinese miners, Bitcoin mining is free for everyone.

Bitcoin is open source so anybody can come up with their own version of software or solution for problems related to bitcoin network. I think you are talking about bitcoin core team, They have done really good work till now and majority of community follows them that's why they seem to be only developer behind bitcoin but that is not true.

Yes since the bitcoin is open source , all most any one can develop their own versions of block chain.So I don't think it can be controlled by some specific mine groups.So Bitcoin is certainly a decentralized system for sure.

It seems to me that this is all clear, but how will things stand in the future when the government will want to legalize Bitcoin. If today there is no binding to a person's personal data, there is not one Bitcoin wallet, what will happen next. How will it be with the fact that my bitkoin storage will lie for a very long time in the Bitcoin wallet and what will happen to them if all this happens. It worries me.

[virtualkeybuyer]

Of course, this is because until now there has been no person or agency that states officially can control the bitcoin, so it can be said that Bitcoin truly decentralized.

I think it is true because if it would not happen then everyone will be able to control our money and also the possibility is the some countries have the power to control the coins, so bitcoin is really decentralized or It will be manipulate by often by the who have a lot of bitcoin  it will surely make bitcoin a well trusted currency for the users. 

[craZyLovE0916]

Yes, Bitcoin is decentralized without question. The very nature of how it is coded is such that it is decentralized... there is no possible way that it could not be, as each node must approve of every transaction... without exception.

[Wind_FURY]

Bitcoin is less decentralized than it used to be but it is still good enough. The hard fork to BitcoinCash is more or less a proof that there are powerful people and miners in Bitcoin who are very unhappy with the direction of the network that all they can do is hard fork away instead of gaining control.

We all know miners want bigger blocks. If the network was centralized, we would have bigger blocks by now

We already have bigger blocks by now

I refer to Bitcoin Cash obviously. This could be thought of as a nice workaround instead of a direct attack against original Bitcoin which would likely hurt it seriously if not kill it on the spot. In other words, the network is centralized (at least, was before the split) but the miners chose by far less risky way to exert their influence since, as I already said, exerting this influence directly would most certainly wreak havoc in Bitcoin, thereby killing the golden goose that Bitcoin has been for the last couple of years

But I refer to "if the network was centralized" then the whole network would have big blocks by now. That is why I said that to some boundary, Bitcoin is still decentralized. No one entity has 100% control over the network.

Which Bitcoin do you refer to specifically?

I made it clear that I meant the Bitcoin Cash network (as I wrote right away).

You had me confused. I refer to the real Bitcoin. The one with the more hash power. Until BCC becomes the blockchain with the more hash power, I will remain calling BTC Bitcoin, BCC BitcoinCash.

But this is in fact irrelevant since in a few months we will likely have large blocks in the main chain as well anyway.

Do you mean Segwit2x? Do not make any conclusions yet. Let us see it happen first.

Would it mean that by then we will have network centralized? Regardless, to exert control over something, you typically don't have to control 100% of it. It is usually a lot less than that, and sometimes even less than 50%

Yes. That is why I said Bitcoin is still "fairly" decentralized enough.