Explain me Like I'm 5 why Bitcoin is decentralized

[justanickname]

I am sure this was discussed a lot but I still don't understand.

I know the code is open and anyone can read it etc.

But for instance let's say I have an improvement to the code. It will only be accepted if the known developers will allow it - which means they have some control over it.

this is from wiki: (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths#Bitcoin_is_not_decentralized_because_the_developers_can_dictate_the_software.27s_behavior)

"Though the developers of the original Bitcoin client still exert influence over the Bitcoin community, their power to arbitrarily modify the protocol is very limited."

So even wiki admits, that the developers do have some control over it!

wiki continues:
"Since the release of Bitcoin v0.3, changes to the protocol have been minor and always in agreement with community consensus."

what is exactly this "community consensus"? who are these people? I don't remember anyone asking me if I agree for each modification they are doing to the code. Ain't I part of the community?

The truth is that all I do is download bitcoin QT and hope for the best, while there are 100 or 1000 (or any other small amount) of people
who makes the decisions for us all.

So I am asking:
1)how can one say that bitcoin is totally decentralized?
2)Where there are people there is corruption, Aren't we suppose to be worried that this limited group of people will ruin the protocol?
3)Can someone explain in a nutshell what can the developers change and what they can't change in the protocol?







 

[1714300467]

1714300467

[CIYAM]

The devs cannot force anyone to upgrade their software.

So it is entirely up to the users (and especially the miners) as to whether to accept an upgrade that might "alter the rules".

Any big change would cause a "fork" (meaning that txs might become invalid for a part of the network and therefore would split the network in two).

[tutkarz]

the only thing you need is to convince people that your code is better than the original one. It is easier of course for main developers because people trust them but it does not mean you can't try to do something else.

[niothor]

The devs cannot force anyone to upgrade their software.

So it is entirely up to the users (and especially the miners) as to whether to accept an upgrade that might "alter the rules".

Any big change would cause a "fork" (meaning that txs might become invalid for a part of the network and therefore would split the network in two).

Well , the big pool operators and devs managed to convince the users last time there was a fork , of course , without using "force".
Or , wasn't it like that?

[CIYAM]

Well , the big pool operators and devs managed to convince the users last time there was a fork , of course , without using "force".
Or , wasn't it like that?

Indeed it wasn't "forced" - basically all the pools had to "downgrade" until a solution was found (no-one was forced but the major pools all agreed that it was the best way to proceed and did so).

[niothor]

Well , the big pool operators and devs managed to convince the users last time there was a fork , of course , without using "force".
Or , wasn't it like that?

It wasn't - basically everyone had to "downgrade" until a solution was found.

And the solution was decided by.... common we both experienced it , you certainly know where i'm pointing
If you don't agree that a few people decided for the the others (smells like a f* government) i'll bring the argument of the minimum fee , was there a vote , a consensus? I

[CIYAM]

And the solution was decided by.... common we both experienced it , you certainly know where i'm pointing
If you don't agree that a few people decided for the the others (smells like a f* government) i'll bring the argument of the minimum fee , was there a vote , a consensus? I

And surely you'd have to agree that "falling back to the previous version" was the correct way to handle things (personally I think that the fork issue was handled very effectively).

[niothor]

And the solution was decided by.... common we both experienced it , you certainly know where i'm pointing
If you don't agree that a few people decided for the the others (smells like a f* government) i'll bring the argument of the minimum fee , was there a vote , a consensus? I

And surely you'd have to agree that "falling back to the previous version" was the correct way to handle things.

Of course , and i never said it wasn't but , the point is that a group made those decisions , and that the next time they could make the wrong one.

Also , i'm aware that there is no way that they could have organized a vote from the entire community , and i don't see it happening in the future ,  so the devs will have to make the decision that they consider the best , but that sounds just like a central government on paper , right?

[justanickname]

niothor, thanks for explaining my point!

[CIYAM]

Also , i'm aware that there is no way that they could have organized a vote from the entire community , and i don't see it happening in the future ,  so the devs will have to make the decision that they consider the best , but that sounds just like a central government on paper , right?

The question to answer is whether "there is a better way" to handle such a problem?

[niothor]

Also , i'm aware that there is no way that they could have organized a vote from the entire community , and i don't see it happening in the future ,  so the devs will have to make the decision that they consider the best , but that sounds just like a central government on paper , right?

The question to answer is whether "there is a better way" to handle such a problem?

It might and It might not be ,  but just because there is no alternate solution to it , we shouldn't assume it is flawless.
I myself don't see a solution for it right now , and until this moment I am happy how things went , but this doesn't matter things will be like that forever.

You know , when all forms of government changed or arise they all looked so good on paper and they indeed were so in the beginning, just to fail miserably in the end. Time will tell.

[Barek]

Also , i'm aware that there is no way that they could have organized a vote from the entire community , and i don't see it happening in the future ,  so the devs will have to make the decision that they consider the best , but that sounds just like a central government on paper , right?

Using the software is voting for the changes. Participating in a pool is voting for the pools actions.

The developers may make the changes, but those changes are public and reviewed by others. Not everybody has to review every change. The point is that everybody could review every change. And if there is something wrong in that change that person can point it out, "waking up" others to review/confirm.

Asking to explain a complex matter in a way a 5 year old could understand it is either trolling or just being lazy.

[porcupine87]

I am sure this was discussed a lot but I still don't understand.

I know the code is open and anyone can read it etc.

But for instance let's say I have an improvement to the code. It will only be accepted if the known developers will allow it - which means they have some control over it.

this is from wiki: (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths#Bitcoin_is_not_decentralized_because_the_developers_can_dictate_the_software.27s_behavior)

"Though the developers of the original Bitcoin client still exert influence over the Bitcoin community, their power to arbitrarily modify the protocol is very limited."

So even wiki admits, that the developers do have some control over it!

wiki continues:
"Since the release of Bitcoin v0.3, changes to the protocol have been minor and always in agreement with community consensus."

what is exactly this "community consensus"? who are these people? I don't remember anyone asking me if I agree for each modification they are doing to the code. Ain't I part of the community?

The truth is that all I do is download bitcoin QT and hope for the best, while there are 100 or 1000 (or any other small amount) of people
who makes the decisions for us all.

So I am asking:
1)how can one say that bitcoin is totally decentralized?
2)Where there are people there is corruption, Aren't we suppose to be worried that this limited group of people will ruin the protocol?
3)Can someone explain in a nutshell what can the developers change and what they can't change in the protocol?

Think as Bitcoin like a internet protocoll. Everybody use the HTTP, but noone is forced too. You can use another one, if you like. You can use your own eletric socket.

Maybe a good analogy is language and the publisher dictionaries. When the publisher will offer an updated version where "one" means "two", does that chance the meaning of the word "one", when everybody disagrees? No. The publisher can just make minor changes with community consensus.

Hope, that helps. I was struggeling with that topic for a while, too

[franky1]

explain it like your 5..

normally money is stored in a computer located in one place, the bank you first registered your identity information to.
although you can view your balance at many banks and ATM's and withdraw from them. your money is stored in one computer and simply sends balance or accepted withdraw requests from your bank to the destined ATM. the ATM does not store the balances of any/all bank accounts. this is called centralised.

however bitcoin has no single computer of storage, everyone using bitcoin has a copy of your balance, along with everyone elses balance.

imagine it like a special ATM in your house that DOES has a copy of everyones banking details on it and all the ATM's talk to eachother without a bank at the center. and they are all secured using a very very long password so that you cant take other peoples money and they cannot take yours without knowing this password.

using this long password you can do what you want with your money and the ATM's talk to each other so that they all get an updated copy of everyones balance. it does take about 10 minutes to confirm to the majority of ATM's that your balance change is correct and not an error/duplicate transaction.

if you made your own alterations to your ATM. and told everyone on this forum, advertised it on TV and everyone seen that your ATM was actually better then the satoshi dev team's version then just by telling people where to get hold of your version would make you become the dominant ATM being used. (if they chose to that is)

it is a freedom of choice for anyone to make, there is no power to prevent any user from not using the satoshi version, your version or any other persona version. its all about individuals choice. there is no leader to decide for you.

you may however find some smart people that see problems with your ATM and explain it to the community whom may not realise such problems exist.

this is the beauty of open source and decentralisation.

[justanickname]

@franky1,porcupine87

Thanks! I understand what you both wrote.
But the fact is that there must be a lot of people understanding the code thoroughly to keep it truly decentralized.

Most people (me included) just download the software and use it.

If for example there were only 10 people on earth who understands the protocol and the rest didn't know anything, they could have easily unite and screw us all. they would say that they have improved the protocol and the rest would simply follow.

My conclusion from this thread is that the only way to make/keep bitcoin decentralized is to have sufficient amount of people who understands the protocol and can warn the community if the known developers tries to hurt it.

Like everything else in our world ( and especially our monetary system), it all depends on education.

[p2pbucks]

it seems we already have a central organization called bitcoin foundation  
Bitcoin protocol is not like http , we store money in blockchain , it's our property . So all bitcoin users have right to vote on every little changes of Bitcoin protocol .

[porcupine87]

@franky1,porcupine87

Thanks! I understand what you both wrote.
But the fact is that there must be a lot of people understanding the code thoroughly to keep it truly decentralized.

Most people (me included) just download the software and use it.

If for example there were only 10 people on earth who understands the protocol and the rest didn't know anything, they could have easily unite and screw us all. they would say that they have improved the protocol and the rest would simply follow.

My conclusion from this thread is that the only way to make/keep bitcoin decentralized is to have sufficient amount of people who understands the protocol and can warn the community if the known developers tries to hurt it.

Like everything else in our world ( and especially our monetary system), it all depends on education.

Who understand's the internet who uses it? People who have a big stack in Bitcoin understand it or pay people to understand it. No worry.

[CIYAM]

It's a lie. Don't u know about the fork, when Gavin & Co asked big pool owners and they did a 51% attack and rolled back a lot of blocks?

So how exactly did they force anyone to change software?

[Come-from-Beyond]

It's a lie. Don't u know about the fork, when Gavin & Co asked big pool owners and they did a 51% attack and rolled back a lot of blocks?

So how exactly did they force anyone to change software?

I removed my comment coz it was already discussed upthread.

[CIYAM]

I removed my comment coz it was already discussed upthread.

Well yes - it was exactly that which I had mentioned - and clearly no-one forced anyone - the pools agreed that the best solution was to go back to the rules of the previous version (the most sensible way it could have been resolved).