Does Satoshis' absence make bitcoin truly decentralized?

[gamechangers]

One of Satoshi's reason for creating bitcoin is decentralization. I believe that bitcoin will remain truly decentralized regardless of whether he is around or not. His presence may even be enough to take bitcoin to a higher level earlier than anyone can imagine.

[1714889819]

1714889819

[1714889819]

1714889819

[1714889819]

1714889819

[1714889819]

1714889819

[1714889819]

1714889819

[blueteam09]

Cryptocurrency aimed at decentralization, but this is unlikely. Rich people know everything is against the wishes of the founder. The rich are turning the focus to concentration. You are a small investor or go against everything if you do not want to become frustrated.

[SunGod-1]

It wouldn't make a difference whether or not Satoshi decided to be active in this space or not as what he created is decentralized regardless of his prescience, that is the nature of Bitcoin. Regarding whether he could influence price to a small degree if he were directly involved now, I think that would be a safe assumption.

[Strufmbae]

There are more cases like, pyramiding schemes, hyip in other terms,  that uses bitcoin and most of it are hunted by FBI,  tracing where it came from, and of course decentralization is better,  once there would be a situation wherein bitcoin will be oppressed,  there would be no direct contact to the developer. 

[bitcoindusts]

Satoshi's absence did create many positive effect on the status of bitcoin.  He proved to the world that bitcoin is indeed pseudonymous (an innate attribute of the cryptocurrency), he shown everyone how a person can use bitcoin without having the need to link your wallet with a real world identity.

And his absence made true the offering of bitcoin to be decentralized where no governing central authority is needed to keep the system in existence. I believe the same as you do, should Satoshi decide to reveal himself, we might not have the same level of trust with bitcoin as people will keep thinking that Satoshi might be behind every dip and every rise.

[Awoben]

Yes, I believe His absence gave bitcoin the freedom and makes it difficult to be targetted.
Not knowing the developer makes it free of government control.  If he was present, government might have tagged bitcoin as a dangerous scheme, knowing it challenges the way they run the financial world.

[BitHodler]

His presence may even be enough to take bitcoin to a higher level earlier than anyone can imagine.

You can't be more wrong on that. We firstly don't know if Satoshi thinks we're heading towards his preferred direction. Secondly, when he signs from the genesis block, the market will tank so hard that you wish he never showed up.

To some degree there is still the thought of people that Bitcoin may be a get rich scheme, where Satoshi's presence will only confirm their doubts. Everyone blindly assumes he holds around 1 million BTC.

If enough people believe that, you can imagine how severe the reaction of the market will be. The Core developers know better than anyone what's needed to turn Bitcoin into a success, and we're working towards that right now already.

[franky1]

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.

bitcoin should be decentralised. but that requires users having choice. without fair open choice, its not decentralisation. its distribution
and dont cry that the choice of stay on network or F**K off is a fair choice. that is not fair choice thats the tyranny of apartheid, the tyranny of nazi, the tyranny of any corrupt unethical system

the implementations were following core
the implementations that were not following core were banned in august 2017
are you now denying the whole august 1st event even occurred?

now do you think random users got to decide. no. they could only follow because there is no alternative level playingfleid full node that would have survived the roadmap plan of REKTness that occurred with things like UASF and NYA bait and switch

do you even understand the word coercion
USAF: follow cores roadmap or node/blocks get ignored
NYA: follow cores roadmap or your transactions wont be seen on the network by list xx of merchants
swx2: follow cores roadmap and we (will fake) also giving 2mb after
anyone else that just didnt change to a core opposer node. just got their node defaulted to being outdated and not a full validation node thus not be able to object to the roadmap. they just became blind to it (dev buzzwords, bridged, downstream nodes)

core only had 35% desire for segwit before the coercion and code tricks.
even now the utility of segwit is low. yea even the then big miners that advocated for cores roadmap are still afraid to use segwit for thier own funds when they get block rewards
consensus can and was bypassed because people were blinding following one group. so that group got to control what consensus should be. they even went as far as lowering the threshold and doing the apartheid tactics of threatening to kick nodes/blocks out the network if they didnt obide by the rule of the roadmap

its literally wrote in the blockchain. you can actually see the version numbers in the blocks and the how things change
you can see it in forum posts, twitter where certain faces promote the tricks to by pass it
you can read it in he code of the bips and in the code for the supposed 'alternatives'

for there actually to be a fair consensus mechanism there needs to actually be diversity/fair choice

even the devs admit their actions. yea they cal it buzzwords.. some call it a unilateral upgrade (i laugh as thats a buzzword of centralism) some call it bilateral split some call it bypassing consensus some call it a controversial fork some call it by many names but by using mandated dates and threats that if you dont follow cores roadmap ur f**ked is saying core controlled the network as all roads led to cor because everyone FOLLOWED core..

users dont control consensus because they just download core because they would get REKT if they didnt.

the stats are there the data is their there. but you can scream it never happened all you like


anyway i know your trying too hard to turn  decentralisation debate into a "someones attacking doomad" social distraction. but the events are what the events are. history can be seen without your cries that it didnt happen.. the stats exist the data exists and even the devs talk about it using their own chosen buzzwords.. i am just simplifying it all that we need to get back to a level playing field of multiple choice of nodes and not just blindly follow cores roadmap
im not sure what your trying to defend but it aint a dcentralised network. you seem too core positive and obsessed with what core should do rather than what a open network should do

[DooMAD]

Tragic.  


Let's approach this from another perspective:  

Imagine in some alternate reality things had gone differently and users had somehow decided en-masse that EC was a great idea.  Then imagine they all started using a client which not only enforced EC as the current ruleset, but contained code to fork core clients off the network.  And imagine there's also sufficient hashrate for that chain to be secure because the miners are operating in accordance to that new ruleset.  I'd be defending that outcome too.  Despite the fact there would clearly be people who didn't like it, I'd defend that because the thing that made it happen is the users running that client.  It doesn't matter what code devs make.  The outcome depends on the users.  

the implementations that were not following core were banned in august 2017

By.  The.  Users.

You have to be running a client before you can block the connection to a different client.  The users had plenty of choices they could have made.  XT, BU, Classic, older Core clients that didn't contain code to disconnect certain nodes from the network.  But they didn't want to make those choices, they wanted to drop the nodes proposing a ruleset they didn't agree with.  So they did.  Like it or not, people generally agreed with the arguments presented by those who said "REKT".  You lost.  Present a more compelling argument next time.

but the events are what the events are. history can be seen without your cries that it didnt happen..

Who's denying it happened?  I know what happened, I was right there watching it.  When rational people look at these events, they can see what happened.  But when a conspiracy theorist crackpot like you looks at these events, you come up with some fantastical fiction worthy of a hollywood movie (or possibly just a story scrawled on a padded wall with your own excrement when you wriggle out of your straightjacket).  You're insane.

[alex_gr_cc]

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.

In fact, the market is controlled by large coin holders. The founders also influence the course, by making changes to the code. But any developer can do this. Approval of changes in any case is adopted by a decentralized vote. This is if we are talking about a public blockchain like Ethereum.

[veleten]

no,Satoshi absence has nothing to do with bitcoin being decentralized
with ETH and Buterin it is not the same,although there are some similarities: both have huge coin stashes, both created the coin
but other than that bitcoin is being developed by a consensus through BIP's
and even if Satoshi (if he existed and wasn't a group of individuals who didn't want to reveal their identities) resurfaced now
I doubt he would have major impact on how the things are going, maybe only if  he sells a huge portion of his coins or reveals a critical vulnerability that cannot be patched
and that are all negative scenarios, also I think Buterin is doing the right thing too, let Etherium develop without its creator's influence will give it more chances to grow into
something better and more decentralized

[franky1]

the implementations that were not following core were banned in august 2017

By.  The.  Users.

users didnt get a vote
only 35% of nodes were segwit. only 35% of blocks were segwit
users didnt have to change anything. they were told everything was "backward compaitble" which if you unwash the word twist is that old clients will blindly accept segwit without upgrading because segwit nodes treat the old nodes as second class(bridged/filtered nodes) the which dont 100% validate because how segwit mutates the data to strip it to a thing that blindly passes old node tests)

old nodes were not rjecting segwit. not because they loved segwit but because segwit passed them striped data to BYPASS rejection.

the actual vote was for merchants and miners
FIBRE stripped out what it didnt like before anyone got a chance to "vote"

any proper nodes that could reject core/segwit nodes would end up just getting manipulated blocks that were stripped to appear as regular old blocks with transactions that blindly pass segwit transactions in the block. or get banned off the network

meaning users had no chance

as for any pools that made blocks that would dilute cores required version flag. core via FIbre and other stuff could reject them easily... meaning the users wouldnt get them to build ontop off to cause some orphan drama... meanwhile what you think are "users" would accept anything either way due to how core BYPASSED it with the stripped block data and threats to miners/merchants


LEARN ABOUT THE BYPASS
(gmax buzzword downstream nodes..... lukeJR buzzword filtered nodes)

you need to read the wishy washy herpa durp code.. they even drew a picture to show it actually happened
..
seriously doomad you can spend forever just crying wrong because wrong. but it seems you need to read some code first and become shocked at the coercion that occured

you can keep on trying to turn a we need diversity into a franky vs doomad all you like... or you can learn about what actually happened from the source. i know you dont want to learn from me so i only offered subtle hints thus not appear as spoonfeeding you.
the data, stats, code, documentation is there. but its for you to do your research.

if not, no point you wasting your time being so defensive against diversity
i do find it funny how entangled you have become in having an opposing mindset to it while pretending you dont. but all you are doing is meandering this topic into a comedy.

........
as for the proposal scenario of EC... again your mindset is "fork core off".. thats YOU saying that
the level playing field would have had oppertinity of having enough node selection/freedom/choice where people select it. it NATURALLY achieves consensus. and nothing gets forked off
again your obsessed with things having to get forked off as the only option
(facepalm)
whomever told you its the only option. i think thats the problem you have been learning from those that are telling you a story
the reality is. if there was no true consensus. no activation would occur. if ther was true consensus. the it activates and life continues on. any node in the small minority doesnt auto fork into a new altcoin. they just get stuck unsynced at a block height lower then the rest. and treated as second class nodes

but yea in a scenario of EC getting consensus would be where core actually listened to the community and maybe done a
core v0.12.a - support EC
core v0.12.b - dont support EC

and for EC to get consensus people that love core and trust core would run v0.12.a thus EC would get consensus and still get the core dev team as their supplier
if a community didnt have consensus for EC. then EC simply wouldnt activate.
remember no other teams but the core roadmap team instigated mandatory dates and bypasses.

i know you were trying to poke a bear to set up a scenario of where EC supports would mandate activation.
 but using real consensus of a real level playing field the separate teams would come to a CONSENSUS by communicating and contributing to a whole network community of to find the middle ground where all teams find that happy g-spot where all teams can happily find pleasure from. without having to rape the network via coercion

[AlexAF]

Not exactly. Satoshi created the system and strengthened it in the market, then created a clear management and renewal structure. Then simply there was no need to control it as the system is self-sufficient. Satoshi knew what he was doing and not just left.

[taratorly]

How does Satoshi affect Bitcoin? Or Ethereum?

If Satoshi emerged today;
1) Can he increase the number of Bitcoins?
2) Can he reduce the number of Bitcoin?
3) Can he set the price of Bitcoin himself?
4) Can he transfer the Bitcoins in our wallets to his wallets?
5) Can he change the structure of Bitcoin alone (without the community's participation)?
6) Can he destroy the blockchain network?
...

We can sort everything that can be done centrally, like this one by one. However, the existence of Vitalik or Satoshi does not harm the centerless structure.

Some may claim to have a lot of Bitcoins in hand. The LTC founder also had numerous LTCs and sold them all! The market was not badly affected.

[project_delta]

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.

I am sorry but what does a person has to do with a decentralized system. I get you are going with it, but there is always next of kin. In my opinion, that doesn't matter.

[Qurelal]

I like it. This is the key to success when people control the currency. The founder of bitcoin has the right to be anonymous. He is a man like you and me.

[pat4cryptoreal]

In order to kill cryptocurrency, Government would have arrested Satoshi Nakamoto and give him or her some allegation or order to nail Satoshi if his or her identity was known to everyone. This act also make us to fill that bitcoin is our own. Decentralization also come from that act.

[Teawhalee]

I believe his absence has truly helped bitcoin so far. True and great project owners should really be anonymous. And that's the aim of cryptocurrency to give everyone freedom and security..

[adzino]

The main reason why Satoshi stayed anonymous and decided not to reveal himself was so that people would not be influenced by him in anyway. You will have to admit, if he showed up who he was, any decisions taken by him will naturally given more weight by the people. Many people will think of him as the leader of bitcoin (even if he doesn't want to be the one) and this will end up eventually destroying the decentralized system of bitcoin.

[bitcoinveda]

the main moto behind bitcoin protocol is meant for decentralised nature so bitcoin is capable to run without any owner  and creator absolutely true satoshi absence is justified for bitcoin growth