Bitcoin being decentralised an illusion?

[brainactive]

After reading some articles from https://endthefud.org/, I am still not fully convinced that Bitcoin is decentralized and without Bitcoin being decentralized, it carries little to no value.

Despite many supporters claiming that no government has control over the Bitcoin network or price (and that even if they do have control, they wouldn't hurt it due to innnovation), this seems to be proven untrue time and time again. For example, over the years, everyone labelled China threats as FUD and that they would never completely ban Bitcoin. Earlier this year China banned BTC mining, and over half of the entire network shut offline in the following weeks.

Also most recently with the Infrastructure Bill, the broad language used to define a “broker”, is a major blow to decentralization.

The arguments in the endthefud article don't seem to hold up. The articles claim that governments can't and won't cripple Bitcoin's decentralisation and even if they try to ban it, other governments will embrace it. While the second part is true, we're starting to see first hand that the first part is not with China turning their back to crypto. And now US and UK also starting to turn their back to crypto. If Bitcoin can be crippled with a little tax provision in a bill, is it really going to stand the test of time as being decentralised? And if it's not decentralised, what other value does it have?

[1714942900]

1714942900

[1714942900]

1714942900

[NeuroticFish]

After reading some articles from https://endthefud.org/, I am still not fully convinced that Bitcoin is decentralized and without Bitcoin being decentralized, it carries little to no value.

Despite many supporters claiming that no government has control over the Bitcoin network or price (and that even if they do have control, they wouldn't hurt it due to innnovation), this seems to be proven untrue time and time again. For example, over the years, everyone labelled China threats as FUD and that they would never completely ban Bitcoin. Earlier this year China banned BTC mining, and over half of the entire network shut offline in the following weeks.

Also most recently with the Infrastructure Bill, the broad language used to define a “broker”, is a major blow to decentralization.

The arguments in the endthefud article don't seem to hold up. The articles claim that governments can't and won't cripple Bitcoin's decentralisation and even if they try to ban it, other governments will embrace it. While the second part is true, we're starting to see first hand that the first part is not with China turning their back to crypto. And now US and UK also starting to turn their back to crypto. If Bitcoin can be crippled with a little tax provision in a bill, is it really going to stand the test of time as being decentralised? And if it's not decentralised, what other value does it have?

You are exaggerating and yet again I will be questioning the motifs why's that.
China problems did not shut "over half of the entire network", not even half of the hash rate, if that's what you wanted to mean. (Although hash rate and network are... different concepts.)
Then "US and UK also starting to turn their back to crypto" is plain FUD and complete misinterpretation of reality. The fact they tax crypto businesses sound as acceptance to me. Yes, the tax law is not properly written and average Joe may get in trouble (financially) and that could affect decentralization on some degree, but not as big as you (or your sources) inflate it.

[mk4]

The word "decentralized" never actually meant that the government or any central authority can't and won't cause any harm to Bitcoin. They surely can cause a bit of damage(as seen with the temporary drop in hash rate), but the fact is, they can't shut it down. You know why? Because Bitcoin is decentralized!

[Obito]

You're the one who is illusioned, bitcoin being decentralized meant that there's no central authority that guides, govern or manipulate the coin but that that doesn't mean that it's market can't be taken over by government or individuals who have a lot of bitcoin and influence that they can easily move the market to where they want it to be.

[Tim-BTC]

After reading some articles from https://endthefud.org/, I am still not fully convinced that Bitcoin is decentralized and without Bitcoin being decentralized, it carries little to no value.

Despite many supporters claiming that no government has control over the Bitcoin network or price (and that even if they do have control, they wouldn't hurt it due to innnovation), this seems to be proven untrue time and time again. For example, over the years, everyone labelled China threats as FUD and that they would never completely ban Bitcoin. Earlier this year China banned BTC mining, and over half of the entire network shut offline in the following weeks.

Also most recently with the Infrastructure Bill, the broad language used to define a “broker”, is a major blow to decentralization.

The arguments in the endthefud article don't seem to hold up. The articles claim that governments can't and won't cripple Bitcoin's decentralisation and even if they try to ban it, other governments will embrace it. While the second part is true, we're starting to see first hand that the first part is not with China turning their back to crypto. And now US and UK also starting to turn their back to crypto. If Bitcoin can be crippled with a little tax provision in a bill, is it really going to stand the test of time as being decentralised? And if it's not decentralised, what other value does it have?

According to your statement, China has shut down half of its mining plants. What impact does that have on Bitcoin? It's just about short-term price fluctuations. There is no need to amplify the influence of China's policies. On the contrary, China's influence will become smaller and smaller.

How do you understand decentralization?

Compared with the existing centralized electronic cash system (online payment system), Bitcoin is the complete opposite:
The currency issuance of the online payment system is centralized, and the issuance of Bitcoin is decentralized;
The currency flow of the online payment system is centralized, and the transaction of Bitcoin is decentralized;
The online payment system maps currencies in the physical world, and Bitcoin does not map any existing currencies;
The online payment system itself does not issue currency. Bitcoin is issued out of thin air in the digital world.

In terms of decentralization, the Bitcoin system has reached its limit. The initial stage of decentralization is automatic, that is, it runs automatically according to rules set by people, while the advanced stage of decentralization is autonomous, that is, fully autonomous and spontaneous. As an electronic cash system, the Bitcoin system has reached the ultimate state of decentralization :
As a currency application, not only is its transaction autonomous, its issuance is also autonomous.
As a computer network, it is completely decentralized, not just a distributed network.
As an organization, it is completely community autonomous, and there is no need for a leader to coordinate.

Decentralization is at the core of the blockchain thinking model, and Bitcoin has achieved the ultimate decentralization.

[dkbit98]

Despite many supporters claiming that no government has control over the Bitcoin network or price (and that even if they do have control, they wouldn't hurt it due to innnovation), this seems to be proven untrue time and time again.

Braininactive nothing was proven untrue except in your mind, and banning miners from China only proves that their government can't control Bitcoin and miners.
Miners simply moved to other countries and even if hashrate dropped much more it wouldn't really hurt Bitcoin, especially looking at bigger picture of hashrate.
China want's total control of everything including currencies, so they made digital yuan to track people, and they don't want Bitcoin messing up their plans.

Also most recently with the Infrastructure Bill, the broad language used to define a “broker”, is a major blow to decentralization.

It is not affecting decentralization and it would be stupid to say that someone is controlling Bitcoin just because of some bill that is not going to be applied until 2023, and it still needs to be confirmed in House of Representatives.
The very act of making bill like this is proof that Bitcoin is decentralized and controlled by nobody, but big players can manipulate BTC price just like for any other asset, but that does not affect decentralization at all.

[ranochigo]

There is no such thing as complete decentralization, sorry to burst your bubble. You can only achieve complete decentralization if every user of Bitcoin is mining by themselves, ie. 1 CPU 1 Vote. That has never been the case for anything, because you cannot stop people from expending more resources into mining. There was a sharp drop in difficulty but the est. network hashrate has been rising for the past few weeks. People moving their operations out of China is more of a precautionary measure; China banned Bitcoin mining but it also doesn't mean it can be done overnight.

The crackdown did not cripple Bitcoin at all, the network was still running smoothly. It is fine for a certain degree of centralization so long as no single entity are able to dominate and control Bitcoin, which is still true.

[Tytanowy Janusz]

Despite many supporters claiming that no government has control over the Bitcoin network or price (and that even if they do have control, they wouldn't hurt it due to innnovation), this seems to be proven untrue time and time again. For example, over the years, everyone labelled China threats as FUD and that they would never completely ban Bitcoin. Earlier this year China banned BTC mining, and over half of the entire network shut offline in the following weeks.

It may surprise you but China is a country. Not a single person or company. I can go even further with this. Bitcoin is not decentralized - earth (our planet) is resposingle for 100% bitcoin hashrate. If earth will decide to stop mining ... btc will die!

Now let be serious. Lets sum up this China ban event. The most populated country, 4 times bigger than USA in term of population, 18% of world population, economic and military power banned bitcoin... BTC hashrate dropped by half (for short period of time - it was also caused by price dump - less profitable mining worldwide) and ... no effect on end user. End user not even realize what happend. Hashrate is slowly going back up with miners moving to other countries.
The largest cannon has just fired and bitcoin is still here.

What centralized force control bitcoin right now. Name it ... if you clame its not decentralized.

[Findingnemo]

Governments can shut the miners but they can't stop the transaction that is the difference of centralization and decentralization, Bitcoin mining were stopped when the announcement came but in the next very few days the transaction fees are very less than normal it means somewhere someone keep their mining process which is never going to stop as whole.

[Kong Hey Pakboy]

You're wrong OP, decentralized meant that there's no one at the center and that no one can control bitcoin itself and not the network. Also, you have to understand that bitcoin isn't controlled or controllable, it's the market that's moved and it's expensive to move those markets.

[kryptqnick]

Being centralized doesn't mean not being valuable, as centralized digital currencies also become popular sometimes (such as Ripple, for instance). Likewise, there are tons of decentralized coins that are pretty useless and worthless. So value is not something that sticks only to decentralized or centralized cryptocurrencies. That being said, Bitcoin is decentralized in a sense that there's no center, no single authority/company/person who has it under control. The supply is predetermined, the ownership falls on many people and companies from different countries, nobody can regulate the price, and mining is done by many and can potentially be done by anyone. There's no equal distribution of mining, coins or influence between all the actors, of course, but Bitcoin is nevertheless decentralized to some extent in every aspect.

[Sterbens]

After reading some articles from https://endthefud.org/, I am still not fully convinced that Bitcoin is decentralized and without Bitcoin being decentralized, it carries little to no value.

Despite many supporters claiming that no government has control over the Bitcoin network or price (and that even if they do have control, they wouldn't hurt it due to innnovation), this seems to be proven untrue time and time again. For example, over the years, everyone labelled China threats as FUD and that they would never completely ban Bitcoin. Earlier this year China banned BTC mining, and over half of the entire network shut offline in the following weeks.

Also most recently with the Infrastructure Bill, the broad language used to define a “broker”, is a major blow to decentralization.

So just because of the recent impact caused by the cessation of mining in China and then generalizing Bitcoin centralization? Just because it has affected the market price for some time? does the timing of China's crash on the Bitcoin price last? no
decentralized concept is free from central control? Since when did everyone think of China as the Center? we never even said that in either the literal history of Bitcoin or the star of the show.
The logic is simple, If Bitcoin is centralized, seeing the price fall still persists until now.

[Pandji02]

It's not illusion. Yes, govs can make an ifluence on BTC, ban it or support and that will make BTC go up or down. But it's not directly controlled by anyone and can't be totally shutten down.

[avikz]

Despite many supporters claiming that no government has control over the Bitcoin network or price (and that even if they do have control, they wouldn't hurt it due to innnovation), this seems to be proven untrue time and time again. For example, over the years, everyone labelled China threats as FUD and that they would never completely ban Bitcoin. Earlier this year China banned BTC mining, and over half of the entire network shut offline in the following weeks.

China banned bitcoin mining. They did not take control over bitcoin network. If they start mining bitcoin with billions of dollars of investment and launch a 51% attack, that would be an attempt to control. Banning is just moving their fat-ass out of bitcoin which is genuinely great for bitcoin. So decentralization of bitcoin is not compromised here. You need to understand that fact!

Bitcoin is more decentralized than we can think off. China's ban has nothing to do with its decentralization. Rather bitcoin is still surviving because it is decentralized even after China's ban.

[Luzin]

The news is always repeated and keeps happening. If your base is Chinese occurrences I don't think it will be valid. If you look at the history, bad problems are always present and will disappear by themselves. Regarding regulation I think some of the news are indeed a lot of arguments regarding tax collection plans for Crypto.
In my opinion, the government intends to take advantage and it could be a step towards a regulation even though the world government cannot control and regulate prices. If it is seen that this is actually a good step, I hope there will be legalization as payment. Because if a tax is imposed then this is like a valuable item that has been taxed. But if the tax provisions are very large, it could kill users who own small assets.

[lablab03]

The word "decentralized" never actually meant that the government or any central authority can't and won't cause any harm to Bitcoin. They surely can cause a bit of damage(as seen with the temporary drop in hash rate), but the fact is, they can't shut it down. You know why? Because Bitcoin is decentralized!

I'm totally agree with you @mk4 its a decentralised so no matter what causes they're trying to do just to shutdown bitcoin the cannot stop it. As the matter of fact if they can maybe bitcoin now is dead as they're really against in it even before..  yes we can say they can give problems on bitcoin especially when it comes adaption and deflation of the price, but the fact that its a decentralised, no need to worry about it. Let them going crazy coz its their choice..

[Fesatmas]

It's about decentralization and centralization? you are still questioning this with the various problems that have recently come? I'm sure you understand it, but don't overdo it and distort the concept of decentralization as if it reverses its true meaning.
Then if it is said that Bitcoin has reached the highest decentralization, will it change the existing program system on the Blockchain temporarily to centralization?
I think we are final, that when Bitcoin has reached its highest decentralization, it doesn't mean it's all over.

[Ucy]

It's as decentralized as the ease of running full nodes, taking part in network consensus and keeping the network operational by an independent Global Community. This is not done by a Central Entity and no one can retrict you from running full nodes and helping to keep the network decentralized.

The price can be manipulated just as the price of something as decentralized as Gold can be manipulated, but this will be easier for them without the transparency of Bitcoin Network... better still, it is done by them in secrecy and they can do that to any other decentralized thing that is controlled by demand and supply. You could prevent manipulations if manipulators are within the network and bounded by its principles/rules. This is one of the reasons we need to lessen any form centralization as much as possible

[khaled0111]

The ban on bitcoin mining in China didn't cause the network to shut down or even affected it in the slightest way, except maybe for the limited decrease in hashrates which was resolved in a short time thanks to chinese miners who moved their operations overseas and the difficulty adjustment which happens every two weeks.
Bitcoin users were able to broadcast their transactions regardless of the incident, although they had to pay higher fees to get faster confirmation (just for few days).
We may argue if bitcoin is fully decentralized or not, but what's for sure is that it isn't centralized as no entity can completely shut it down.

[rincoeng1986]

Despite many supporters claiming that no government has control over the Bitcoin network or price (and that even if they do have control, they wouldn't hurt it due to innnovation), this seems to be proven untrue time and time again. For example, over the years, everyone labelled China threats as FUD and that they would never completely ban Bitcoin. Earlier this year China banned BTC mining, and over half of the entire network shut offline in the following weeks.

It may surprise you but China is a country. Not a single person or company. I can go even further with this. Bitcoin is not decentralized - earth (our planet) is resposingle for 100% bitcoin hashrate. If earth will decide to stop mining ... btc will die!

Now let be serious. Lets sum up this China ban event. The most populated country, 4 times bigger than USA in term of population, 18% of world population, economic and military power banned bitcoin... BTC hashrate dropped by half (for short period of time - it was also caused by price dump - less profitable mining worldwide) and ... no effect on end user. End user not even realize what happend. Hashrate is slowly going back up with miners moving to other countries.
The largest cannon has just fired and bitcoin is still here.

What centralized force control bitcoin right now. Name it ... if you clame its not decentralized.

states can only ban the use of bitcoin in their country, but states cannot control the growth of bitcoin, because bitcoin is decentralized by themselves. regarding the case of the Chinese state prohibiting bitcoin miners or the use of bitcoin, but on the other hand, other large countries are competing to adopt bitcoin. so in conclusion bitcoin survives without the influence of a single country.