Can there be some Bitcoin Central Agency in future?

[timerland]

Whenever and if that ever happens, it'll be the end of bitcoin for us and we'll likely lose a lot of support for the coin since it's core philosophy, decentralisation will be changed then.

Bitcoin was made to help decentralise things and give the people more power, if that's removed there's no point to it, so it'll never happen.

[1714945199]

1714945199

[1714945199]

1714945199

[1714945199]

1714945199

[1714945199]

1714945199

[abel1337]

I don't think that such thing can really happen, because the whole point of using bitcoin and what is based on is decentralization and creating an agency or something to control and centralize it is defying that idea, scams and other things happen because people are being stupid and uneducated, if you lose your money investing in some shady website that is your fault and no one else, bitcoin is secure and independent and odes not need any regulation due to its nature and how the blockchain works.

Being protected by some central agency obviously defeats the purpose of bitcoin which is decentralization. As if a central agency can do about the scams that are happening today, It will be hard for them to find who's the culprit and we all know that bitcoin transactions are irreversible that's why they can't do anything to protect the users of bitcoin. It's better to tighten up your own security for your own good. Banks are centralized thats why it can be protected by some agency and bitcoin's purposed is to be opposite to them. Transacting anonymously and being decentralized is one of the main features of bitcoin.

[squatter]

People often tend to say that Bitcoin is a P2P currency based on the trust between two people. However it's obvious that these days scams are on rapid rise while governments are generally not providing any legal security to those who are involved in this. So do you think there can be some central Bitcoin Authority represented by various people who can become jury in such cases of dispute?

An entity like this wouldn't have any real legal authority. It would just be like an arbitrator and parties would need to agree to arbitration.

I'm not sure that's necessary. There are already plenty of established arbitrators out there, not to mention both civil and criminal courts to deal with legal disputes, fraud, etc.

[Kyraishi]

It wouldn't be the real thing, if Bitcoin ever became centralised, it'll become the exact thing it tried to fix.

People often tend to say that Bitcoin is a P2P currency based on the trust between two people. However it's obvious that these days scams are on rapid rise while governments are generally not providing any legal security to those who are involved in this. So do you think there can be some central Bitcoin Authority represented by various people who can become jury in such cases of dispute?

An entity like this wouldn't have any real legal authority. It would just be like an arbitrator and parties would need to agree to arbitration.

I'm not sure that's necessary. There are already plenty of established arbitrators out there, not to mention both civil and criminal courts to deal with legal disputes, fraud, etc.

That's true - I couldn't see them getting a lot of legal power, and there's no need for a new arbitrator system/company.

There also hasn't been enough crimes that have been committed with Bitcoin to justify opening a new court just for it, we already have the various forms of law and Bitcoin related disputes would probably just be civil or criminal suits depending on the intensity.

[Apes]

even if it was felt necessary, but I don't think there will ever be a Bitcoin Central Agency. So far, bitcoin is a digital asset that is independent
of all transactions are the responsibility of the owner. if indeed there are people or groups who are moved to build the Bitcoin Central Agency
I really appreciate.

[Shasha80]

Sorry to say bitcoin central agency is never going to exist. Because problems that occur due to scammers must be overcome each person is not an agency that interferes, scammers can occur because of their own mistakes in doing analysis and decision making. If it is forced there will be a central agency bitcoin, bitcoin will no longer change decentralization. Which brings freedom to its users, because we can control the bitcoin that we have. It's not a good idea to deal with scammers by creating a bitcoin central agency, there are many other ways to overcome problems related to scammers.

[blckhawk]

I think it would be beneficial if it would be able to regulate and implement policies to existing exchanges and declare international standards for security and such before an enterprise opens up an exchange. This is to prevent thefts, scams, etc.

Having a central agency does not necessarily mean the system would be centralized. The supply/demand and block generation, as well as trades are still decentralized and controlled by the traders. I don't see a problem here. And also, it does not mean it would collect every single address owner and his details. It's just to have someone responsible to exchanges with unsecure platforms.

This is much more beneficial to crypto in general since most of the scams come from altcoins and various crypto-related projects.

[Darker45]

People often tend to say that Bitcoin is a P2P currency based on the trust between two people. However it's obvious that these days scams are on rapid rise while governments are generally not providing any legal security to those who are involved in this. So do you think there can be some central Bitcoin Authority represented by various people who can become jury in such cases of dispute? I think this can also increase adoption as people can trust btc more. Also even countries would feel safer as such an authority can conyrol certain malpractices

• No one is going to feel safe under the authority and control of a few people even if these people are saints. When are we to realize this?
• A Central Agency for a decentralized system is funny and amusing as it is extremely ludicrous.

Enough has been said against this idea.

People often tend to say that Bitcoin is a P2P currency based on the trust between two people. However it's obvious that these days scams are on rapid rise while governments are generally not providing any legal security to those who are involved in this. So do you think there can be some central Bitcoin Authority represented by various people who can become jury in such cases of dispute?

An entity like this wouldn't have any real legal authority. It would just be like an arbitrator and parties would need to agree to arbitration.

I'm not sure that's necessary. There are already plenty of established arbitrators out there, not to mention both civil and criminal courts to deal with legal disputes, fraud, etc.

Absolutely! It is better to leave the proper authorities to do their job. After all, Bitcoin was never created to solve scams. It does not have any legal representation. Neither does it have the capacity and power to run after those and bring them to justice.

[Zeke_23]

Having some Bitcoin Central Agency will just remove the true purpose of bitcoin which is decentralization.
Bitcoin is created to protect its users and it removes the need of having a third party when having a transaction, if this will be implemented or been created in the future, its purpose will be useless

[alphaboon]

Going back to central agencies will be going back to Square One, destroying what Bitcoin has achieved all these 10 years.  If anyone wants a central agency, might as well go to your central bank and get fiat instead.  One huge advantage of Bitcoin is that it is decentralised.

[Anonylz]

Bitcoin is no longer entirely decentralized thanks to the introduction of kyc by various exchanges, that part has already been penetrated, and thanks to too many insecurities surrounding btc while doing any transactions, the possibilty of getting scammed, people don't trust each other enough to engage in p2p without an escrow, or if you are still not comfortable go to an exchange, submit your data and transact,
Only few number of people patronize decentralized exchanges around, so btc is already some how centralized, only a matter of time before something close to a btc central agency is introduced, many are yawning for regulations because of the growing number of scams around, who knows what will happen.

[Mandoy]

There are also some positive side in having a centralized agency but for some very important reason it defeats the vision of Satoshi Nakamoto when he created bitcoin. Even though there are many conflicting ideas pertaining what bitcoin needs to be and how to settle problems in the code that leads to many forks, I still believe that bitcoin should remain as a decentralized digital currency. Removing the decentralized feature of bitcoin is not an option but rather we should look for other alternatives to settle the problems.

[dothebeats]

It’s highly unlikely for a centralized body to materialize within bitcoin’s ecosystem. Besides, what’s the centralized body going to do in a decentralized currency anyway? It’s not as if they would be able to mediate in important talks in the community and act as a representative whenever bitcoin is mentioned. At best, they would only be a puppet/used as a political tool for those who want to further their interest with bitcoin and nothing else.

[franky1]

I think it would be beneficial if it would be able to regulate and implement policies to existing exchanges and declare international standards for security and such before an enterprise opens up an exchange. This is to prevent thefts, scams, etc.

Having a central agency does not necessarily mean the system would be centralized. The supply/demand and block generation, as well as trades are still decentralized and controlled by the traders. I don't see a problem here. And also, it does not mean it would collect every single address owner and his details. It's just to have someone responsible to exchanges with unsecure platforms.

This is much more beneficial to crypto in general since most of the scams come from altcoins and various crypto-related projects.

(points 1 below is about exchanges/business. not the bitcoins themselves)
1. regulations(facepalm)
reguations give exchanges the ability to make their own policies on how to stay in the law, but then make it only a crime to disobey the law if they dont report it. if they do report it the only penalty is not criminal, but civil (a fine & resignation letter of a scape goat employee).
regulations give businesses a shiny sherriffs badge to police its customers
what should be promoted is not regulations but consumer protections. alot of people think regulations are consumer protections but they are not.
take the 2007 financial crisis. the bank bailouts, the consumers houses forfeited/foreclosed on. banks were regulated but consumers lost out.
banks didnt get slapped wrists(prison time) because they, when the crap hit the fan, reported their mishandling just intime before getting slapped for not reporting it should the crap hit the fan before reporting.

2. having a CENTRAL authority is centralising things.
a solution would be for instance, for those suseptable to scammers or just happily willing to throw large amounts of funds around without thinking that each person nominate 3 members of their family as co-signers of a multisig. thus keeping things somewhat decentralised. then if one person wanted to spend money. the family can check that person is sane or stupid, by asking if the person knows the recipient. thus family get to slap some sense into the person if they are about to make a foolish mistake handing funds to strangers(prevention better than remedy)
take eamples where scammers target old people that thy owe tax, unpaid bills and must immediately go and purchase itunes/google giftcards to pa the scammer. imagine if the granny had to ask families permission. and the granny told the scammer she cant do anything without family consent. the scammer would have just hung up and the family would help the granny come to her senses to not be fooled so easily (with a cup of tea not a slap)

3. no authority has the ability to reverse bitcoin transactions apart from the holder of the bitcoin deciding he is moral enough to hand back his ill gotton gains. to have a system where funds can be taken away by someone thats not the holder. EG an outside party who has no private key access to the funds. is not only bad security. but also ripe for abuse. such as police seizing funds without having the bank customers password/pin number. or seizing rolls of banknotes from a car stoppd at border patrol. because of no crime but just having more than what police deem fit that a person should have in their car. under the illusion that having too much money is suspicious

imagine the situation. no on is allowed more than 1.2btc or they will be investigated and funds frozen for having more than $10k in their possession

[Lucius]

People often tend to say that Bitcoin is a P2P currency based on the trust between two people. However it's obvious that these days scams are on rapid rise while governments are generally not providing any legal security to those who are involved in this.

If one is aware of what is the cryptocurrency and how it works, there are really small chances that someone can fool him. That scams you're talking about are mainly related to the ponzi/mlm or similar things, unfortunately no one can fight human stupidity and ignorance.

It is not easy to be your own bank, but Bitcoin promoting this idea from the start - moving away from centralized to decentralized currency. Your idea makes no sense unless we change the whole concept and make drastic changes, but then it would no longer be Bitcoin.

[minersday]

Why will people need a bitcoin central agency?  There can only be a central agency to a particular thing when there is a central body controlling the use of that particular thing and this body is basically in charge of the production of that thing. Bitcoin on the other hand has no specific body  in charge of the production and circulation of the number of Bitcoin. So why the hell will the central agency be needed for ?

[Genemind]

Cryptocurrency is decentralized so there is no one in control of it. However, having a Bitcoin Central Agency couldn't still resolve problems such as hacking and scamming. It will be better if we users will be the one to adjust and get rid of those crimes. Cryptocurrency could stand and resolve its issues alone.

[kooboat]

Bitcoin is backed by blockchain which is very decentralized in all aspects, for it to be partially or fully controlled by another agency would only remove the decentralized backbone of blockchain. Governmental agencies should just do their part to ensure that people don't take advantage of the anonymity bit and scam innocent people.

[Digitalbitcoin]

No, not at all.

Bitcoin is an emergent superorganism.

Bitcoin is doing better. and never had:

- CEO
- Marketing
- Salaries
- ICO
- Partnerships
- Headquarters
- Customer support.

For source Check tweet  https://twitter.com/abhijit_kale/status/1118374494110912512

So considering above mentioned parameters Bitcoin is different. And it proved it's existence.

Making a challenge to the specification of Bitcoins decreases Bitcoin's privacy, and this is against its specification. Bitcoin is decentralized. And if in future any central agency takes control of Bitcoin then that will end of Bitcoins era. belive it or not.

[Kakmakr]

Bitcoin is the currency for the people, so the people decides what services they need to use to make the experience more convenient and safe for them. Exchanges are a perfect example of that, because they came into existence, when some people wanted to trade in Bitcoin in a more regulated environment.

Yes, Bitcoin is supposed to replace all these centralized services, but there are still some people who wants the safety net of third party services. The community has created several intermediary services, like Escrow services and Payment processors to offer them some additional protection against these scams, but none of these services are guaranteed to be 100% safe.

Bitcoin is all about choices and alternatives and you decide what you want.