Amazon has it. Tesla has it. Apple had it.

[Agostosmori]

What they had was a strong guy in charge who could make absolutely sure the development of the company's idea followed the vision. They are highly successful becasue of it.

Bitcoin does not have it.

There is a large group of different people all with different ideas on how to carry out the vision, and no-one to ensure a consistent focus. Running a large-scale operation does not work using consensus. Instead it always leads to disagreement and a failure of the project. So it will be with Bitcoin where the recent civil wars with alt coins is only the beginning.

Because that is what bitcoin was created for, something that no one is controlling. Again it is a decentralized currency that aims to simplify money transfers. Why do we need to have someone to regulate Bitcoin if it the block chain can do it alone.

[Fishbones78]

The issue with this logic is that it's literally contradicting the point in Bitcoin.

Having a leader for Bitcoin is not possible, and I think it only needs a few adjustments to be perfect. The main thing to make Bitcoin grow isn't advancing the technology, it's make people aware.

[CodyAlfaridzi]

What they had was a strong guy in charge who could make absolutely sure the development of the company's idea followed the vision. They are highly successful becasue of it.

Bitcoin does not have it.

There is a large group of different people all with different ideas on how to carry out the vision, and no-one to ensure a consistent focus. Running a large-scale operation does not work using consensus. Instead it always leads to disagreement and a failure of the project. So it will be with Bitcoin where the recent civil wars with alt coins is only the beginning.

That is the main idea behind Bitcoin. Decentralization. Are we failing now? There is no "civil wars with altcoins", what wars are we fighting with altcoins? Which altcoins? BCH? That's just some people who wanted to take control over Bitcoin.

Maybe the title should be rephrased to: Amazon has it. Tesla has it. Apple had it. Bitcoin didn't, yet it succeed. The first decentralized system to success — Bitcoin.

Bitcoin does not need a leader, does not need a face. It is the idea behind it. If you need a face on a currency, you can invest in fiat.

No leader = a ship with no rudder. Eventually it will shipwreck.

Look where we are now. Sure there would be people with different ideas, making branch out of it (i.e. forks), but that's the point. The one with the best ideas and implementation will eventually or keep winning.

[leonair]

What they had was a strong guy in charge who could make absolutely sure the development of the company's idea followed the vision. They are highly successful becasue of it.

Bitcoin does not have it.

There is a large group of different people all with different ideas on how to carry out the vision, and no-one to ensure a consistent focus. Running a large-scale operation does not work using consensus. Instead it always leads to disagreement and a failure of the project. So it will be with Bitcoin where the recent civil wars with alt coins is only the beginning.

Amazon has it. Tesla has it. Apple had it.

They have a product that they sell in exchange of people's money. Bitcoin don't have any product to sell you can even mine it like gold, you get get it from somewhere. Gold had a value without a strong guy to manage it, gold has a value because of it's purpose and use. Same as Bitcoin with a primary goal to be a currency, it will continuously increase it's price once more and more people sees it's value and purpose so we don't need a specific strong guy for it to have a value.

[gentlemand]

If OP has a problem with this then Bitcoin is clearly not for him.

The lack of a Jeff Bezos or Steve Jobs is aggravating, unsexy, unproductive, expensive, cumbersome and irritating. It's also vital. Satoshi understood this and that's why he's no longer here.

Bitcoin's pretty much the only project with the balls and size to operate this way. Long may it continue. There are hundreds of other coins with someone to cling on to and that's why we're not discussing them.

[FameBroker]

That's why there are so many hard forks.

[cosmoo]

You compare total different things. Bitcoin it's not a company like Tesla or Apple. And decentralized means that one person can't be in charge.

[Phoenixpple]

Bitcoin does not need a powerful person in charge, so the holders of bitcoin on the network are the person in charge, it is the result of the consensus of the whole network power, as long as the network is in, bitcoin must be in, this is a kind of trust that everyone agrees with.

[dawoodkhan97]

The whole point of bitcoin is decentralization
meaning there is no single owner of the entire
system nor can control it.

But instead it is run by the people and not even
countries can control it even if they did.
Examples such as China, Russia etc, they all
tried but bitcoin kept on crawling upwards.

[stompix]

The worst possible idea.

You know what
Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual, WorldCom, General Motors, CIT Group also had in common?

All of them were valued more than the entire BTC market cap and they also had strong people in charge.
Interesting fact that they all went down and filled for bankruptcy.

In 50 years from now people will look back at the ones you mentioned and say... what has apple,amazon,tesla,kodak,compaq and panam in common.
Having a single human in charge of a so called decentralized currency (which obviously won't be decentralized since we have somebody taking decisions) is the bullet proof solution for bitcoin to end up like the ones above.

If OP has a problem with this then Bitcoin is clearly not for him.

Checking his profile, and I should have done this first, his problem is Bitcoin.

[mobnepal]

Foundation or co-operation around bitcoin or any cryptocurrency might only help to pump and dump its price, it will not add anything real value in it. You can't compare amazon, tesla and apple with bitcoin. They manufacture products which they sell to users they are not store of value or anything, bitcoin is better than apple watch or tesla car, there is no need for marketing strategy to sell bitcoin or whatever.

[scottykarate]

What they had was a strong guy in charge who could make absolutely sure the development of the company's idea followed the vision. They are highly successful becasue of it.

Bitcoin does not have it.

There is a large group of different people all with different ideas on how to carry out the vision, and no-one to ensure a consistent focus. Running a large-scale operation does not work using consensus. Instead it always leads to disagreement and a failure of the project. So it will be with Bitcoin where the recent civil wars with alt coins is only the beginning.

Dude, you have no clue.
Tesla had problems from the start and received $465 million from the government to survive and then the FTC boosted them. They still have no widely accepted vehicles.
The least you could do when making your lame attempt to repeatedly go after Bitcoin is engage your brain before you type.

Do you understand Bit Torrent? Do you understand Linux? Do you understand decentralization at all?

Apparently not?

[InnMind.com]

It's a contradiction in terms, isn't it? Maybe now is the time when the humanity in general needs to learn to accept the idea of decentralization. It is hard because we are more used to having this idea of a strong leader that will get us there. And we are now living in the times of big change. And soon bitcoin will find its way to develop with all the advantages of a leader showing the way without actually the leader 

[scottykarate]

The worst possible idea.

You know what
Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual, WorldCom, General Motors, CIT Group also had in common?

All of them were valued more than the entire BTC market cap and they also had strong people in charge.
Interesting fact that they all went down and filled for bankruptcy.

In 50 years from now people will look back at the ones you mentioned and say... what has apple,amazon,tesla,kodak,compaq and panam in common.
Having a single human in charge of a so called decentralized currency (which obviously won't be decentralized since we have somebody taking decisions) is the bullet proof solution for bitcoin to end up like the ones above.

If OP has a problem with this then Bitcoin is clearly not for him.

Checking his profile, and I should have done this first, his problem is Bitcoin.

That's what I've been pointing out in every thread he spams this forum with. He's shilling without being overt.

I wouldn't doubt that he's on the take by Ver and company.

He has no replies other than slamming people and agreeing with the 1/20 people who show any signs of alignment with his view.

Roger, is that you?

[Chrystora123]

Bitcoin does not need a leader, does not need a face. It is the idea behind it. If you need a face on a currency, you can invest in fiat.

No leader = a ship with no rudder. Eventually it will shipwreck.

I agree with this, Tesla, Amazon, and Apple have a leader, while Bitcoin is an only open source, anyone can search and get it ...

[darkangel11]

Is bitcoin a currency? Decentralized? Shoudl it be like the EUro, with one person in charge? An asset? gold has no one in charge.

What is that one person in charge of the Euro? If you mean the EU central bank, it's the issuer, not a person and not in charge.

Bitcoin does not need a leader, does not need a face. It is the idea behind it. If you need a face on a currency, you can invest in fiat.

No leader = a ship with no rudder. Eventually it will shipwreck.

I agree with this, Tesla, Amazon, and Apple have a leader, while Bitcoin is an only open source, anyone can search and get it ...

It actually gives you a choice. If you like being told what to do and like to depend on other people you have so many government issued currencies to choose from. Bitcoin is different, it was made for those who don't like the common financial system and want something without a central authority.
Does gold have a face representing it? Does it have a leader? Yet it's still here. Your understanding of the topic is really limited.

[hatshepsut93]

What they had was a strong guy in charge who could make absolutely sure the development of the company's idea followed the vision. They are highly successful becasue of it.

Bitcoin does not have it.

There is a large group of different people all with different ideas on how to carry out the vision, and no-one to ensure a consistent focus. Running a large-scale operation does not work using consensus. Instead it always leads to disagreement and a failure of the project. So it will be with Bitcoin where the recent civil wars with alt coins is only the beginning.

This is just a FUD and masked altcoin/hardfork propaganda. To say that Bitcoin can not succeed because it doesn't have centralized development is the same as saying that open source projects are impossible, and this is obviously wrong, since there are thousands of successful projects that has been around for many years and even decades. It's also a lie that there's some "civil war" going on in Bitcoin community, as big blocks supporters are just tiny minority - it can be proven by the fact that Bitcoin's price remain stable and growing despite all the forks that happened recently, low node count for those forks and the fact that there's very few real users who support forks - most of them are just shills with fresh/farmed/bought accounts.

[gamerfan]

What they had was a strong guy in charge who could make absolutely sure the development of the company's idea followed the vision. They are highly successful becasue of it.

Bitcoin does not have it.

There is a large group of different people all with different ideas on how to carry out the vision, and no-one to ensure a consistent focus. Running a large-scale operation does not work using consensus. Instead it always leads to disagreement and a failure of the project. So it will be with Bitcoin where the recent civil wars with alt coins is only the beginning.

You talked about companies in your opening post.

Bitcoin is a currency and a system of payment. Satoshi made it fully and truly decentralized, so there's no need of a dictator.
Don't think about Bitcoin as a company or a nation. Think more about Bitcoin as the Internet. Who owns the Internet? Who is the 'strong guy in charge'? Just no one... It's almost 50 years the internet has no leader and yet the Internet is so widely used and still growing all over the world...

[Slark]

Bitcoin is not s one man's property. I believe that is the reason Satoshi stepped out from that position a long time ago.
I agree what really exceptional charismatic and strong leader could make Bitcoin better, but at the same having a central figure is also vulnerability.
Plus, I don't think that it will suit Bitcoin - which is suppose to be decentralized - to have some central figure pulling the strings here.

[Blackwalker]

I think bitcoin can become a lot bigger because it is now reaching a lot of ways to actually become a part of our real live first it was only online then you were able to pay with it at some places and now even the big companies signed bitcoin.