Does Satoshis' absence make bitcoin truly decentralized?

[DooMAD]

In the first place Satoshi didn't want to use his 'power' to affect the network as he wants the community to come up with solutions of their own and let consensus pave the way for a better bitcoin. As what he always says, bitcoin is free from any central authority, and the community can always create what they think is the better version of bitcoin, hence why forks occur.

Precisely.  It's not practical to expect every single person to agree on everything forever.  Forks are inevitable.  At all times users are free to decide which forks they choose to transact on.  That's what guarantees decentralisation.  Developers can't force changes that users don't agree with, because the users would simply use other software.  As such, there's no point in trying to place restrictions on what developers can or can't create, because only the users can give that code any real meaning or substance.

your defending core. not bitcoin
if you cared for bitcoin as a decentralised network. you would not care or need to worry or need to defend core. because core would not need defending

Core doesn't need defending and I'm not worried about them.  I'm defending decentralisation.  Consider what it is you're actually proposing.  You are (once again) advocating restricting what certain developers can do because you mistakenly believe that's how you achieve decentralisation.  Tell us how you're going to make it so that Core "should only run current rules" and "all the core devs should have their own releases" without introducing centralisation to enforce that.  It's not rationally possible.  No one can force them to do any of those things in a decentralised system.  

its not about restricting code they want

Then you're not very good at explaining yourself, because that's exactly what you've proposed on more than one occasion, including this one.  Or are you now retracting your "core, if it wants to be a reference client should only run current rules" and "all the core devs should have their own releases" statements?  I don't see any other way to interpret those words.  You want to change they way they operate, but that's not your call.  I'd say this if you tried to tell any other developers what to do.

do you see any code i wrote restricting core? no? ooooo so im not dictating code
do you see any bips i wrote that include mandatory activation dates? no? oooo so im not dictating anything mandatory
do you see any code i wrote that throws core off the network or makes core none functional? no? ooo because im not doing that

I'd love to see some code you wrote, where is it?  I'll support and defend your right to create that code.  I won't try to tell you what that code can or can't do.  It's perfectly acceptable for your code to have activation dates and fork Core clients off the network if that's what you want your code to do.  Users will then be free to run that code if they want (a somewhat dubious occurrence, but that's not the point).  That's freedom in action.  Consider giving it a try, maybe?

core have bips with mandatory activation. those bips have been used
core have code that restricts other nodes from doing things previously possible by non core nodes.
core have code that has thrown nodes off the network purely because they were not wanting the core roadmap

You might portray it as an act of hostility because you disagree with it, but it's really an act of freedom.  The users securing this network through both full node validation and mining freely chose to run the code that did all those things.  It was their choice.  That's how consensus works.  You know that's how it works because you literally saw it happen with your own eyes.  Users wanted those things to happen.  So they did.

you are not defending a WHAT(network) you are defending a WHO(group of devs)

Then why, over the years, have I also defended XT, BU, 2X, etc?  I certainly wasn't winning any popularity contests doing that.  But decentralisation and freedom means they were free to release that code.  So I'll continue to defend their right to do it.  Why am I always the one who is stating categorically that they are not an "attack on the network" and that they are merely filling a niche in the market if I'm such an ardent Core supporter?  I aim to be as neutral and impartial as the protocol itself.  As such, neutrality means all developers are free to do what they want.  

over many many many discussions i have used the term 'we need to go back to a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD of multiple implementations'.
why are you so afraid of that notion? does it go against your buddys roadplan?

How would it be a level playing field when you are suggesting restrictions on certain devs?  Logical fallacy.


For the topic as a whole:

If you want a truly decentralised network, that means everyone is free to create to the code they want to create.  You don't have to like it and you definitely don't have to run it, but no one can stop anyone from coding anything.  It's something that's easy to forget when people propose controversial ideas or release a client you might not personally approve of, but ultimately, there's no way to prevent people from doing that without closing the source and making Bitcoin centralised.  That said, it's also worth remembering there are some risks to having multiple clients on the network.  It's a fine line, but things seem to be working out okay so far.

We have something beautiful here, so let's try to focus on that and not undermine it.

[1714150864]

1714150864

[1714150864]

1714150864

[1714150864]

1714150864

[franky1]

as shown doomad has no understanding of consensus. all he can see is forks and altcoins as the only option of multiple nodes brands..

(mega big facepalm)

if he thinks the only route is for brands to throw each other off the network because their code is better.. then he has no clue
the "some risks" links are funny. saying a bit of 2 second orphan drama is worse than a whole network shut down, was the best comedy of he week to read. seems those comedians would prefer a whole network shutdown than a nodes log file just referencing a rejected block after 2 seconds.. (facepalm).. i guess they either dont understand consensus or are just trying to fake news what consensus is by saying it involves making altcoins/forks. either way, pure comedy.

anyway. there is no point trying to teach him because i have asked him nicely many many times to learn consensus and he has just cried out that im telling him what to do.. (as the excuse not to actually learn about real consensus mechanism)

so best to let him live in his world of altcoin making and other coin making code, and not live in a world of a community of a network that contribute, compromise, communicate, and cider everyone part of a community.

i think doomad will do well on other networks as he seems happy advocating for other networks
before doomad cries a new variant of social drama: there is no code to kick doomad off bitcoin. there is no demand dooman F**K off. i just said he would be happy should he choose to go play with other network like the other network called lightning

[franky1]

You might portray it as an act of hostility because you disagree with it, but it's really an act of freedom.  The users securing this network through both full node validation and mining freely chose to run the code that did all those things.  It was their choice.  That's how consensus works.  You know that's how it works because you literally saw it happen with your own eyes.  Users wanted those things to happen.  So they did.

if it was wanted by consensus. then there would have been no need for a mandatory date. it would have naturally received 95% without USAF with out the bait and switch of NYA and without the REKT campaign.

but nah core only got less than 40% meaning core should have realised their own idea was half baked and gone back to try new ingredients and offer a new cake that the community would want, that would get 95% approval. without any apartheid-esq game play required

[Dexion]

it's a good idea, but I think, vitalek must keep monitoring every ETH development. especially when the market is bullish, because the bullish market is always a lot of negative things that can affect crypto stability.

I think, that Satoshi's decision left bitcoin to create a free bitcoin market cycle. so the market can control every bitcoin development. then utilized by whales, investors, and traders.

[Kprawn]

You obviously do not want a centralized dictator making all the important decisions, but people tend to look for a leader and I

think it is a animal instinct in humans. Put a group of people together (specifically men) and you will find that there will be

conflict in the beginning to sort out who the Alpha male must be. Satoshi managed to remove the need for centralized

authority, by leaving so early in the experiment. ( I do not think it was intentional, but it was the right outcome ) 

[franky1]

Core doesn't need defending and I'm not worried about them.  I'm defending decentralisation.  Consider what it is you're actually proposing.  You are (once again) advocating restricting what certain developers can do because you mistakenly believe that's how you achieve decentralisation.  Tell us how you're going to make it so that Core "should only run current rules" and "all the core devs should have their own releases" without introducing centralisation to enforce that.  It's not rationally possible.  No one can force them to do any of those things in a decentralised system.  

1. you dont need to code any 'restrict core' ban hammer stuff. you just need to re open decentralisation by having other node dev teams on the network that have their own proposal mechanisms
its not restricting them. its just de-powering cores monarchy and removing centralised leadership
ofcourse core wont then be able to stay ahead if they are not the only brand on th network so de-facto they become the reference of only current rules not future rules because they are no longer the sole source of new features

2. people can still refer to core if they believe only core can provide the cleanest code. but in the same respect they are no longer the only codebase on offer and its for the community to have free choice not sole option

3. as for natural consensus re-invention. thats easy. many argue that lots of choices equal lots of forks. which is untrue
imagine this.
5 brands have 5 idea's of a new blockweight
5mb 6mb 7mb 8mb 9mb

your thinking OMG 5 chains of different blockweight.. no
firstly nothing would activate unless consensus is reached so they can all preach their desires forever and never get activated.
however. as you can see.. the 9,8,7,6 are by default also agreeing to 5mb because you cant have 9 unless your node accepts 5
(you cant have 1mb base block unless your node accepts 0.75mb or 0.6 0r 0.5 baseblock)
and so if there is a high majority that is happily with 5 or more then 5mb becomes consensus. and everyone is happier its no longer 4mb because now the baseblock is 1.25mb aswell

and if core become anal and follow lukes desire of 2mb weight 0.5mb base. then people will start seeing luke is being anal and they will avoid using core vLAp (core version with luke anal proposal).

i know your going to cry out that forks will happen.. no. again if a pool chose to make a 8m weight block whil the network ffect is at 4mb/5mb.. the 8mb just gets rejected in under 2 seconds. this has already been seen when a pool made a block bigger than 1mb a couple years ago. it didnt cause a fork/altcoin. it just had its block rejected in under 2 seconds

you do realise that the 20+ pools right now are not all making the exact same block. they are all making 20+ different blocks. its not just a race to the finishline first. its also who fits the rules of consensus

users can have their nodes set to different acceptable values. but the whole network effect of consensus would sort out the mess, and do so in seconds.
my node can accept 32mb blocks. but i know i wont get a 32mb block because of network effect of consensus and the orphaning mechanism (and also my node has a 32mb hard code. and a variable that can be altered at runtime set to 4mb which i can up if something activates within the network)
 but my node is ready to handle changes when changes happen without me needing to recode my node from scratch again. same goes for everyone else they could code their node the same way. and become less reliant on a dev team to spoon feed changes because the user themselves can change settings.
hopefully we will see that dev teams make software with a "options" tab to allow changes at runtime without needing to download/resync for each and every change

again no one will get 32mb blocks or "gigabyte blocks by midnight". because of network effect. what would happen is if all nodes and pools found that 5mb was a mega majority acceptance. the 5mb gets activated when pools think its safe to risk their time/reward to create a block that the network effect will accept
and they wont just create a 5mb block. they will try a 4.001mb block to see if any bugs pop up (like the berkely leveldb bug)
which if 4.001 doesnt get rejected at network level. then they will try more. again like the climb from below 0.5mb to 1mb.
which history shown

you can learn alot about consensus, if you took time to understand real consensus and not just repeat the same lame "fork" stories that have been debunked years ago. the only forks that happened was not due to consensus. but by intentionally bypassing consensus

[DooMAD]

Tell us how you're going to make it so that Core "should only run current rules" and "all the core devs should have their own releases" without introducing centralisation to enforce that.  It's not rationally possible.  No one can force them to do any of those things in a decentralised system.  

1. you dont need to code any 'restrict core' ban hammer stuff. you just need to re open decentralisation by having other node dev teams on the network that have their own proposal mechanisms
its not restricting them. its just de-powering cores monarchy and removing centralised leadership
ofcourse core wont then be able to stay ahead if they are not the only brand on th network so de-facto they become the reference of only current rules not future rules because they are no longer the sole source of new features

I'm sorry, but backpedaling just doesn't cut it.  I need to see you retract the statement that Core "should only run current rules" as though it somehow wasn't acceptable for them to do what they're currently doing.  Otherwise I can't even begin to take you seriously.  I find that mentality deeply disturbing.  It doesn't matter if you now go on to sound like the most reasonable person on the planet, because I'm now stuck thinking your true colours are the ones presented in your earlier post.  Tell me that you give all developers (yes, including that one) your full blessing to release whatever code they want to, regardless of how much you might personally disagree with it.  Otherwise you're no better than the "REKT" brigade you claim to hate.

3. as for natural consensus re-invention. thats easy. many argue that lots of choices equal lots of forks. which is untrue
imagine this.
5 brands have 5 idea's of a new blockweight
5mb 6mb 7mb 8mb 9mb

your thinking OMG 5 chains of different blockweight.. no
firstly nothing would activate unless consensus is reached so they can all preach their desires forever and never get activated.
however. as you can see.. the 9,8,7,6 are by default also agreeing to 5mb because you cant have 9 unless your node accepts 5

And this is different to 'Emergent Consensus' how, exactly?  

You can already run a client on the BTC network that offers this feature.  What's stopping you from doing that?

And don't presume to tell me what I'm thinking, because what I'm thinking is how much I'd like to insult you when you do that.  You don't do yourself any favours.

the only forks that happened was not due to consensus. but by intentionally bypassing consensus

We're literally never going to agree on that.  Ever.  

[franky1]

Tell us how you're going to make it so that Core "should only run current rules" and "all the core devs should have their own releases" without introducing centralisation to enforce that.  It's not rationally possible.  No one can force them to do any of those things in a decentralised system.  

1. you dont need to code any 'restrict core' ban hammer stuff.

I'm sorry, but backpedaling just doesn't cut it.  I need to see you retract the statement that Core "should only run current rules"

im not back peddling. i said on many topics for many years "everyone on level playing field"
but YOU took a one time statement about if core want to be a "reference" then thats a refernce of current rules that other teams can refer to and then other teams can separately build on INDEPENDANTLY

the funny part is. people used core as a reference and then core devs actually went out screaming that other people were using them as a reference... (i laughed at the hypocrisy)

their view of reference is not
open source anyone can use and build on.. but
closed club membership, moderation where everyone needs to follow  the club as reference and not build on outside the club


my point was that reference does not mean core get to be the only central point of new innovation. yea core can offer new innovation. we the network should progress away from core to expand the level playing field into decentralised teams so that there is other level playing field teams at play.. thats not restricting core. thats just not empowering them.. theres a difference
they can still make proposals and innovate. but bing the only source of innovation should change.
again not restricting core. just opening up innovation for others(without REKT campaigns and social hierarchy of defending core as a monarchy)

3. as for natural consensus re-invention. thats easy. many argue that lots of choices equal lots of forks. which is untrue
imagine this.
5 brands have 5 idea's of a new blockweight
5mb 6mb 7mb 8mb 9mb

your thinking OMG 5 chains of different blockweight.. no
firstly nothing would activate unless consensus is reached so they can all preach their desires forever and never get activated.
however. as you can see.. the 9,8,7,6 are by default also agreeing to 5mb because you cant have 9 unless your node accepts 5

And this is different to 'Emergent Consensus' how, exactly?  

You can already run a client on the BTC network that offers this feature.  What's stopping you from doing that?

who said its stopping me. didnt you read. i and a few other are doing it. here ill remind you and embolden it

my node can accept 32mb blocks. but i know i wont get a 32mb block because of network effect of consensus and the orphaning mechanism (and also my node has a 32mb hard code. and a variable that can be altered at runtime set to 4mb which i can up if something activates within the network)
 but my node is ready to handle changes when changes happen without me needing to recode my node from scratch again. same goes for everyone else they could code their node the same way.

the thing your missing is that if independent people release publicly the code that does such, end up getting REKT abuse
again you are defending core by asking me to retract a statement against core. (im laughing at that)

the only forks that happened was not due to consensus. but by intentionally bypassing consensus

We're literally never going to agree on that.  Ever.  

try learning consensus. thats all im going to say

[dunfida]

Ethereum founder Vitalek Buletin recently expressed his intention to step back from the helms as he believes the protocol can now run spontaneously without his presence, https://dailyhodl.com/2018/10/05/vitalik-buterin-preparing-to-detach-himself-from-ethereum-says-platform-can-run-without-him/

I feel the absence of the creator makes the system truly decentralized and it can't be regarded as a financial pyramid.
Satoshi as the creator could have serious effect on the bitcoin market if he wasn't anonymous. His catching a cold and being filmed at the clinic could easily spark panic and FUD.
Now the community are the ones who control the market and support the technology.

Being anonymous or not it wont really be the main thing for people or community would decide if they would support such tech it would always matter on its revolutionary features the only thing would differ is that when satoshi shows himself it can give out some confidence but he still decide to be anonymous and lurking somewhere in the globe seeing his own creation do stand without the need of his publicity.
This really proves out that bitcoin can stand on its own.

[DooMAD]

And this is different to 'Emergent Consensus' how, exactly?  

You can already run a client on the BTC network that offers this feature.  What's stopping you from doing that?

who said its stopping me. didnt you read. i and a few other are doing it.

Exactly.  There are currently ~37 nodes that support EC whilst still managing to follow the current consensus rules.  It's actually not that hard to do.  Notice that, as we have this conversation, they aren't being "thrown off the network".  There are no "mandatory activation dates" affecting them.  There is absolutely nothing standing in your way.  If you follow the current consensus rules, you don't remove yourself from the network.  After all these years, it shouldn't be such a difficult concept for you to grasp.  For all your talk of "social drama", a sizeable proportion of it appears to emanate from you.  It is a level playing field, people just don't like your ideas enough.  You're losing.  It's as simple as that.  If people actually gave a shit about EC, they'd be using it.  Hell, even BCH users can't agree on that crap.  What hope do you think it has of thriving here?  It's laughable.

the thing your missing is that if independent people release publicly the code that does such, end up getting REKT abuse

And how do you propose "REKT abuse" be prevented?  Do you have any actual solutions?  Or just more whining?  You can call it out for what it is when you see it happen.  You could try to present a superior argument (assuming you had any ability to do that).  You can point me in their general direction and I'll defend the developers who dare to write controversial code, as I always do.  You can't prevent people from shitting on things they don't agree with, though.  Life doesn't work that way.

the only forks that happened was not due to consensus. but by intentionally bypassing consensus

We're literally never going to agree on that.  Ever.  

try learning consensus. thats all im going to say

Try learning reality.  If you get forked off, it's because your software was not following the current consensus rules.  Keep crying about "bypassing consensus" even though that isn't a real thing.  I just performed two forum searches.  One for the phrase "bypassing consensus" and another for "bypassed consensus".  Notice how all the results are either your posts or someone quoting your posts.  Why is no one else talking about "bypassing consensus" if it's something that actually happened?  Why is it just you who chooses to believe this total bullshit?  Let me guess, it's another conspiracy, right?   

[Emilyp]

To an extent yes. If Satoshi had been in the know, bitcoin wouldn't be as decentralised as it should. It will look as if it is being controlled by one individual but by being anonymous and allowing the community to take consensus has really helped bitcoin.

[Maxgemini]

Sure this a key point for me. Satoshis' absence make Bitcoin truly Decentralised! Imagine if he had been here...

[solkinsolali]

Ethereum founder Vitalek Buletin recently expressed his intention to step back from the helms as he believes the protocol can now run spontaneously without his presence, https://dailyhodl.com/2018/10/05/vitalik-buterin-preparing-to-detach-himself-from-ethereum-says-platform-can-run-without-him/

I feel the absence of the creator makes the system truly decentralized and it can't be regarded as a financial pyramid.
Satoshi as the creator could have serious effect on the bitcoin market if he wasn't anonymous. His catching a cold and being filmed at the clinic could easily spark panic and FUD.
Now the community are the ones who control the market and support the technology.

It has actually been a great blessing in disguise for Satoshi Nakamoto not to be at the scene at all. If he was known, people wouldn't have believed the concept of decentralization as it would always seems to be controlled by one man.

[franky1]

And this is different to 'Emergent Consensus' how, exactly?  

You can already run a client on the BTC network that offers this feature.  What's stopping you from doing that?

who said its stopping me. didnt you read. i and a few other are doing it.

Exactly.  There are currently ~37 nodes that support EC whilst still managing to follow the current consensus rules.  It's actually not that hard to do.  Notice that, as we have this conversation, they aren't being "thrown off the network".  There are no "mandatory activation dates" affecting them.  There is absolutely nothing standing in your way.  If you follow the current consensus rules, you don't remove yourself from the network.  After all these years, it shouldn't be such a difficult concept for you to grasp.  For all your talk of "social drama", a sizeable proportion of it appears to emanate from you.  It is a level playing field, people just don't like your ideas enough.  You're losing.  It's as simple as that.  If people actually gave a shit about EC, they'd be using it.  Hell, even BCH users can't agree on that crap.  What hope do you think it has of thriving here?  It's laughable.

here you go again about the "follow"

yawn
now again show me some node dev teams that have their own BIP proposals that are not "followers"
again your definition of core is that people should "follow"

its not about my idea. its about decentralisation.
you think core being the sole BIP promoter and moderator is decentralised. and that just having followers is decentralised.
you think being a follower is a level playing field(triple facepalm)

wake up to the conversation. please learn consensus
you're concentrating too much on things like EC. as if its the only option thats not cores roadmap. there are many more. the point is not about segwit vs EC.. the point is we need more node teams that have their own proposals platforms so we dont have to jump through cores hoops of core roadmap or F**K off

Try learning reality.  If you get forked off, it's because your software was not following the current consensus rules.  Keep crying about "bypassing consensus" even though that isn't a real thing.  I just performed two forum searches.  One for the phrase "bypassing consensus" and another for "bypassed consensus".  Notice how all the results are either your posts or someone quoting your posts.  Why is no one else talking about "bypassing consensus" if it's something that actually happened?  Why is it just you who chooses to believe this total bullshit?  Let me guess, it's another conspiracy, right?  

not true
1. other groups wanting other consensus didnt mandatory activate their proposals.. they never caused their own fork. EG only the core roadmap had devs that done a august 1st mandatory activation with threats of banning nodes and rejecting blocks to bypass consensus even before the NETWORKS rules changed

2.you keep saying "current consensus".. well even before the segwit code actually activated the core devs and buddies mandated opposers should be kicked off.. WEEKS BEFORE activation.. to fake a vote to get an activation
this was not consensus. nor level playing field

the consensus weeks before activation was rules other nodes and pools would still function and accept.. but the REKT campaign of UASF were not going to let nodes that oppose cores future from opposing cores future. and that at a time where the consensus was still the same.. where having a network split BEFORE consensus changed!!
try checking the code, look at blockchain dates. oh and it was not core opposers that decided to make their own network first. as it was the core/USAF that were being biased. other nodes finally made blocks on a different network hours later. because core buddies didnt want them on the network. even demanding they change their code from the pre august code to make the core opposers become different.
again core making demands and acting like a monarchy.. WEEKS BEFORE CONSENSUS RULES ACTUALLY CHANGED

3. again you say nodes cant get kicked off if they follow CURRENT CONSENSUS
again check the block data and code... nodes were pushed off weeks before rules changed.

4. as for "bypassing consensus" well search out bilateral split. you will see gmaxwell and others talk about it. different buzzword, same event/meaning.
as for "mandatory activation" well search out UASF.. you will see loads of stuff. again different buzzword, same event/meaning

im sorry that i dont use other peoples buzzwords. i use common words that reveal the meaning more clearly
EG i dont call a lightning revocation. a "revocation".. i call it a chargeback. as its a more common word people can commonly resonate to as to what it means. if i said "revocation" people would wonder what it meant. which then becomes a whole meandered conversation in itself trying to explain it

EG i dont call a heart attack. a "mio-cardial infarction". i call it a heart attack, yea doctors may only use the word Mio cardial infarction. but that does not mean there is no debate about heart attacks or that only im concerned about heart attacks because a search shows i only use that term. i just dont be a jargon spouting elitist to convolute a conversation with buzzwords common people cant understand, just to avoid common people from getting involved in a debate

5. in real consensus event you are still on the network. you just have data rejected in a couple seconds. its then up to you to push acceptable data. or remain on the network but stuck behind.
seems you have been misled by thinking there are only 2 options are follow core or make a altcoin..
again it seems you want only core to control the rules...

..
anyway. i do enjoy your comedy moments of trying to distract a decentralisation debate to take thee emphasis of decentralisation becoming lost since 2013 and just becoming distributed code followers but centralised change to code
and also the trying to make it a social drama of "franky1 vs core"
but the reality is the rules are controlled by one group and only distributed to people who only FOLLOW the rules of cores roadmap because those that dont want to just be followers but also offer their own innovations separate from core get REKT

you can spend all century trying to meander the conversation into a personal attack. but that does not change the data or history found on the blockchain and within nodes. that show that there are no other teams offering proposals separate from the core roadmap sheep follower hierarchy. nor are there any data that disproves that UASF was not a thing.

also i can find many posts where you are the one that has said if people dont like whats happened to go make an altcoin or go play with another network. typical BS response

[magneto]

I don't think that bitcoin could ever be truly 100% decentralised. That's just the case with all the bitcoin businesses that are holding funds for its users.

At some stage, you still have to trust someone to hold funds for you.

But apart from that, I'd say that the absence of a leader does probably make bitcoin more decentralised, and a lot more decentralised than a lot of other cryptos who have a leader who still asserts a degree of control over the coin. Perhaps Satoshi thought of this as well when he went AWOL, but that's all speculation.

[sunsilk]

Somehow that can be one of his intention why he left and never showed again but with Vitalik Buterin, I thought he's going to make it as Ethereun 2.0. Is that another coin or an upgraded Ethereum?

And with Charlie's absence after he expressed his leave to Litecoin due to conflict of interest is also the reason to make it fully decentralized.

[rosemary4u]

I think it is possible so but not always the case. There are many altcoins whose founders are around yet still they are doing perfectly well on the market. I think decentralization can happen even in the presence of founders of a particular coin. Who knows if Satoshi is alive or dead, I don't think much is known about this genius who created bitcoin.

[darklus123]

Based on my perspective bitcoin is somehow on both sides by portion. However I think that if satoshi is still giving instructions to the current devs. I personally think that we might be able to follow the decentralized path better than now.

I strongly believe that if satoshi is here until now it can never be like ETH. Because one thing is for sure satoshi probably has a different objective than the CEO of ETH.

[DooMAD]

Exactly.  There are currently ~37 nodes that support EC whilst still managing to follow the current consensus rules.  It's actually not that hard to do.  Notice that, as we have this conversation, they aren't being "thrown off the network".  There are no "mandatory activation dates" affecting them.  There is absolutely nothing standing in your way.  If you follow the current consensus rules, you don't remove yourself from the network.  After all these years, it shouldn't be such a difficult concept for you to grasp.

here you go again about the "follow"

yawn
now again show me some node dev teams that have their own BIP proposals that are not "followers"
again your definition of core is that people should "follow"

And now we've reached the stage where I honestly can't tell if you're trying to deliberately twist what I'm saying, of if it's just a matter of you being too simple to understand it.

I'm not saying you have to follow Core.  You are a total moron if that's the conclusion you somehow manage to draw from my words.  Developers do not decide what the consensus is.  Stop telling people to "learn consensus" if you believe developers get to choose what that is.  Users determine consensus.  USERS.  Do you need it written in brightly coloured crayon or something?

The users who secure the network either by validating transaction with full node software or by mining  decide what consensus is.  Your software needs to conform to the wishes of the users.  If you do not conform to the wishes of the users, you can be forked off.

But no, keep telling those fairytales about "bypassing consensus".  Some gullible noob is bound to fall for it sooner or later.  

Bitcoin is decentralised.  You're free to run alternative clients if you remain compatible with the code other users run.  Bitcoin has a level playing field.  Consensus cannot be bypassed.  Either accept it for what it is, or continue to have zero credibility while you've got your tinfoil hat on.  It's not a conspiracy, the users just don't agree with you.

[ImHash]

Satoshi made the right move to disappear from the scene, But people know that he still owns 1 million bitcoins and that will never change. He also owns millions of other forks from the bitcoin forks we had and will have. Having a million bitcoins is not gonna centralize the system. It is already decentralized because no one can stop anyone from transacting or mining bitcoin.