Bitcoin being decentralised an illusion?

[Coyster]

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.

The thing is I actually do not comprehend what you mean by "highest decentralization", Bitcoin has always been that way, decentralized. That (decentralized) nature wasn't gradually improving or growing, it was that way on the inception of the technology/network, that's why I find it pretty difficult to understand what you mean by if it has reached it's highest decentralization. But that said, and whatever you mean, you should understand that the network can never change to a centralized system, it will always be free from the control of the governments as its users will always "be their own bank".

[1715045377]

1715045377

[1715045377]

1715045377

[1715045377]

1715045377

[1715045377]

1715045377

[romero121]

There is misunderstanding about the decentralized feature of cryptocurrency. To clear it we can use the term distributed nodes or database. Users always mention that bitcoin is decentralized and it is a big threat to the government. Why it is said so, not because the end to end users aren't known. But, the network can't be closed by the governments as the data is distributed. If it is something like a server based network, destroying the server everything can be taken to an end.

There needs to be clear learning about transparency, pseudonym feature and the decentralized working.

[ivankoh]

So visit Taproot and understand some of the combined security mechanisms that make bitcoin irresistible to decentralization.  Bitcoin has never been under pressure to decentralize under government regulation, which has never happened.  The essence that Satoshi has purposefully built is about decentralization.

[hatshepsut93]

Governments can influence the price of Bitcoin, but they can't control it. They can push the price up or down with their actions, but they can't set Bitcoin's price at some target and maintain it, which they do with their fiat currencies to a large extent. Also a lot of their actions can work only once. After China banned Bitcoin mining for real, they can no longer influence price in that way again. Bitcoin being decentralized doesn't mean that it's immune to all influences.

Similarly, governments can ban mining or try to impose some regulations on miners, but they don't control all the miners in the world. They don't even have 51% of miners under their direct control ready to launch an attack. And don't forget about nodes, which are run by thousands of private individuals across the world and can't be realistically regulated because it's just a regular PC.

[Imran232]

What decentralized mean to you? Do you think if anything decentralized then you can do anything?  Well Here's little bit mistaken from you. Like what actually we heard this decentralization word. Maximum people will say from bitcoin yes i also hear this decentralization word from bitcoin. And now about bitcoin. If you thought government can track it so this decentralization is just an illusion its actually not. Then let me clarify if it was then bitcoin will become a secondary currency to the world from since 2010. Because government also know about bitcoin technology and it is decentralized thats why they are aware to accept it. But now government approved it all with its decentralization. Because public want it.

[5thFear]

I somewhat agree to you. Bitcoin may not be decentralised as we know of it. But it still gives us idea about decentralization and there are lot of coins that might achieve full decentralization so atleast we are going in the right direction and bitcoin has shown as that direction

[huu78]

Whatever the government's decision will not affect the price of Btc.
They will not be able to control Btc. What makes Btc go down or up is only the sellers and buyers. The more demand Btc will be rarer and the price will keep going up. In the end I believe the world will trust decentralists more, Btc or others.

[Rruchi man]

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.

I do agree with you. I’d make a wild guess that decentralization of bitcoin is about 75% as there a small group of Bitcoin administrators that coordinate the Bitcoin ecosystem. Examples of centralized services, include marketplaces and web-wallets. Because users cannot maintain local wallets due to the mainly functionality reasons they have to depend on a web wallet hosted on a remote server and accessible through a website

[verita1]

After reading OP. Every time I convince myself that the FUD is an impressive thing it can convince anyone who has no knowledge of how, why and where bitcoin is going.
Bitcoin is decentralized, this is how its creation has been and in the world at every moment, bitcoin has new users, investors, developers willing to contribute to the power of decentralization. It is your money that you can handle at your convenience, without having to ask your government for permission.
As long as we follow the pillars by which bitcoin was created we are giving it its value and the strength to continue its mission.

[nurilham]

I assume you cannot understand the meaning of "decentralized system". In my humble view, Bitcoin is decentralized because no one or no institution can control the Bitcoin price. But that doesn't mean no one or no institution can influence the price. A big country like USA or China, can influence the Bitcoin price if there is a big issue related to Bitcoin there. However, it is just an impact of what the country does, not meaning the controls the price.

[just_Alice]

Firstly, being able to impose regulations, taxes doesn’t mean control, so the fact that governments are intervening from time to time in crypto affairs to get some profit for themselves doesn’t make them in charge.

Secondly, the interesting thing is that any form of control with Bitcoin is only possible when it’s not functioning as a 100% P2P. No kind of power can prevent people from sending Bitcoin from one electrum address to another. The problems appear when some kind of the third party is present, such as exchanges. Therefore, the governments can ban exchanging, withdrawal, trading, but the network itself, the main function of which is to make direct transactions possible stays decentralized.

[BrianH]

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?

Yes, you and others are getting "red pilled" and waking up to the reality. I started a similar thread. Central governments are closing in on Bitcoin and going to use it to monitor and track their own citizens. People need to be aware of what banning KYC, software development and mining will do to Bitcoin. This will have the effect of weakening the hash rate, tracking everyone and funneling people into government friendly, big tech's like PayPal and Square. Eventually, they will ban Bitcoin outright and force people to use CBDC, once everyone is used to the new system. Cash will also be banned. Everything you do will be tracked. This is our future, if people don't stand up for their rights.

Someone once theorized that Satoshi Nakamoto was actually the government. This was all an elaborate scheme to get people to be tracked by a "pseudoanonymous" digital currency. I am cynical, but not that cynical.

However, I do believe the system is already being controlled. It does not take much capital to move cryptocurrency prices or markets. It is done all the time in the stock market.

Bitcoin crashed when:
1. Citadel pipeline was in the news for ransomware. The hackers were hacked by the government. I believe the government was the one doing the hacking in the first place. Suddenly, there was a constant stream of "ransomware" in the media to convince people that crypto was evil. This set up the infrastructure bill.
2. Elon Musk declares Tesla no longer taking Bitcoin. Elon is the government's/elite's puppet - they give him tax subsidies (Solar City, Tesla, SpaceX) and he cons people into thinking what the government wants (invest in Tesla, replace NASA). He is like a puppetmaster.
3. Elon Musk goes on SNL and denounces DOGEcoin / crypto.

China could have effectively destroyed Bitcoin with a 51% attack, just like Bitcoin SV is dying from. There was a study that only about $9B in mining infrastructure would kill Bitcoin. However, crypto would survive, because it is a medusa.

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.

So do the other first world countries, including the US. With the KYC in the infrastructure bill and banning of anonymous wallets in Europe, we have a very dystopian looking 1984 ahead of us.

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.

Not yet completely... it will be soon.

[Levero]

Bitcoin is a true peer-to-peer electronic transaction and allows direct online payments from the initiator to the other party without the need to go through a third-party financial institution. It does not require the government and central agencies to control personal funds.
The Bitcoin system is already a high degree of decentralization. Its issuance and transactions are all decentralized. It runs a complete node and participates in network consensus through a unique Bitcoin network system.

[Melody kdl]

The market panic caused by China's suppression of virtual currencies cannot be regarded as China's control of the Bitcoin network. Price fluctuations in the crypto market will rise or fall due to certain factors. The negative news in China has indeed affected the market. Chinese encryption enthusiasts will also panic. The government is free to choose whether to support or oppose it, but this does not mean that the government can control it.

[mk4]

I somewhat agree to you. Bitcoin may not be decentralised as we know of it. But it still gives us idea about decentralization and there are lot of coins that might achieve full decentralization so atleast we are going in the right direction and bitcoin has shown as that direction

Lol you got it totally upside down. There are some cryptocurrencies that are more decentralized than others, but Bitcoin is still the most decentralized project by a HUGE margin.

[franky1]

bitcoin has different categories. and each has its own decentralisation/centralisation risks

the data archive is decentralised.
   with probably over 100,000 archive locations of the blockchain all in different locations

the software development.
  category one: basic wallet/services - this is decentralised.
     with many projects everywhere, different purposes, different languages, different userbase.
  category two: protocol decisions -  this is centralised.
     only 1 repo with very censored/controlled access require requests and acknowledgement by certain people. with no regular review/resignment process. no back door to throw out/replace bad actors from the top

the coins, becoming centralised
  with just 1.2mill of 18mill coins belonging to separate addresses of under 1btc..
  meaning over 16mill coins are collected in large volume.
  over 12million coins are in addresses hoarded with over 100coin each

mining, hard to measure
many think hard to measure means its centralised to china. but although stratum pools say they are head quartered in china. the actual distribution is more random, with even chinese tagged pools having US/EU miners

the weakest point of centralisation is still in the single reference client that is not just a reference. but the decision parliament of the protocol. where those in true decision have more power than 'random contributors'

[dataispower]

Being Decentralised is its cognitive ability to actualise the true reality of Peer to Peer not essentially the market value, it censors the identity of users. The market movement doesn't in any case make it a Centralised asset. If it is the case it could have been banned by many authorities. However, it still maintains the pseudonym of being the most Decentralised Crypto asset.

[slaman29]

Someone once theorized that Satoshi Nakamoto was actually the government. This was all an elaborate scheme to get people to be tracked by a "pseudoanonymous" digital currency. I am cynical, but not that cynical.

However, I do believe the system is already being controlled. It does not take much capital to move cryptocurrency prices or markets. It is done all the time in the stock market.

It's an old theory yeah but I really don't think the government's that smart. If he was government, then he was acting independently or a few of them were doing it together as funded by governments. I mean there are layers upon layers of state funding and all parallel and oblivious to each other. So if it happened, it was technical but never intended.

There is SOME control of the system for sure, but it still beats every other system out there.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

To kill bitcoin you will need to kill all the live nodes with whatever back up data people have. How it's not decentralized?

[tyz]

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.

The best example that Bitcoin is well designed and decentralized was seen a few weeks ago. When the Chinese government shut down miners in the country virtually overnight, the mining output of around 200 exa-hash had collapsed to around 80 exa-hash. But the network adapted very quickly. There were no block generation outages or other problems. Only the price had fallen, but that has nothing to do with decentralization but with speculation. In the meantime, the exa-hash size has increased again, as the miners have moved out. For me this was a good proof how well decentralized and stable the whole system is, even if a big country bans mining activities.