Bitcoin decentralization debate

[franky1]

Your rather ill-conceived notion that users merely "follow" code is so reductionist. In reality, users choose which software they want to run, demonstrating their power of choice. If a significant portion of users decides not to follow a certain update, the network will fork, as history has evidenced.

And as for your dramatic allegation that dissenting opinions are "attacked as an enemy," wake up! Open source means open discussions. Just because someone's proposal isnt adopted doesnt mean they're branded enemies. It means their proposal wasnt good enough or didn't align with the project's ethos. Look forward, adapt, evolve, and lets be grateful for the learning opportunities that come from challenges rather than wallowing in misguided cynicism

you might want to check actual events of bitcoin history 2015-2023 and not just repeat a philosophy of 2009
we are no longer in the same network landscape or approach to updates as 2009-2014

users do not update their software and then a new rule activates when the network is node majority ready.
check out the 2015-2023 philosophy about "backward compatibility" but read it with scrutiny about how it causes user nodes to not be part of the network vote.

it will enlighten you
then check out how core in november 2016-june 2017 did not even get 45% accomplishment to activate their feature, then suddenly with the proposal of the mandatory activation suddenly core got an UNNATURAL 100% activation by august

look at the REKT campaigns of 2015-2023 where anything that was different to cores roadmap plans were treated as 'control attempts' and were made into pushing for those branks to 'fork off into an altcoin or else'

even the delusional doomad keeps saying 'anyone can fork the network and create their own altcoin and see who follows them' where he keeps shouting the only path for non-core nodes to make changes is via making an altcoin and seeing if they can populate another network..

so try to read actual code of actual activation methods, and how activations since 2015 have not needed the mass of user nodes to be network secure ready to verify a new feature before such feature activates.. and then realise the security risk of such method

[1715410074]

1715410074

[BVeyron]

Hello bitcoin community

I am a fan of Bitcoin, so I have a friend who introduced him to Bitcoin and explained to him the great advantages that Bitcoin has, especially decentralization and privacy.

My friend is one of the people who believe in conspiracy theory, so he doubts that Bitcoin is decentralized and believes that there is a party or country behind it.

I tried to explain to him repeatedly that this is impossible and that Bitcoin is completely decentralized, that no one owns Bitcoin and no one controls it, and that any change that occurs on the network must To gain the consensus of the community, but he nevertheless insisted that he does not believe that Bitcoin is decentralized, only because he does not believe that there is decentralization in anything.

How can I convince my friend that Bitcoin is indeed decentralized?

Bitcoin is centralised if we take a look at how the protocols are being updated: additions are performed by a small (mostly anonymous) group of people. Moreover, wallet tools and the companies which create and update wallets also bring in some degree of centralisation. We can't say that any project is fully decentralised. But we can evaluate the degree of decentralisaton, which is very high in blockchain projects, especially when we compare them with digital fiat systems. The main thing here is data storage: every mining facility stores the whole blockhain. So, in this aspect, the system is highly decentralised. As for control, I think that decentralisation degree and possibility to control the system are not connected with each other.

[Blitzboy]

Hello bitcoin community

I am a fan of Bitcoin, so I have a friend who introduced him to Bitcoin and explained to him the great advantages that Bitcoin has, especially decentralization and privacy.

My friend is one of the people who believe in conspiracy theory, so he doubts that Bitcoin is decentralized and believes that there is a party or country behind it.

I tried to explain to him repeatedly that this is impossible and that Bitcoin is completely decentralized, that no one owns Bitcoin and no one controls it, and that any change that occurs on the network must To gain the consensus of the community, but he nevertheless insisted that he does not believe that Bitcoin is decentralized, only because he does not believe that there is decentralization in anything.

How can I convince my friend that Bitcoin is indeed decentralized?

Bitcoin is centralised if we take a look at how the protocols are being updated: additions are performed by a small (mostly anonymous) group of people. Moreover, wallet tools and the companies which create and update wallets also bring in some degree of centralisation. We can't say that any project is fully decentralised. But we can evaluate the degree of decentralisaton, which is very high in blockchain projects, especially when we compare them with digital fiat systems. The main thing here is data storage: every mining facility stores the whole blockhain. So, in this aspect, the system is highly decentralised. As for control, I think that decentralisation degree and possibility to control the system are not connected with each other.

You have a good understanding of how system updates and wallet tools can lead to centralization. Its like when people say, "Im unique"; technically, everyone is, but we all have something in common. In the same way, Bitcoin is a leader in decentralization, but some of its parts are naturally more controlled. Its...not easy. I mean, if we look into how mining works, we'll find that a few big mining pools control most of the hashing power. Isnt that centralized?

But you got it right when it comes to storing info. Every worker has a copy of the whole chain, which is about as decentralized as you can get. Its a data network with control hubs in the middle. Not the same, right? But its the differences between Bitcoin and blockchain that make them so strong and special. Control and division are like those friends who rarely agree but cant live without each other. This tug-of-war makes sure Bitcoin stays strong.

[franky1]

i hope you have learned that the "backward compatibility" trick core uses now means there is now no longer a UASF nor UAHF operation to activate new features. because since 2016 a user required activation has no longer been required

instead its done via a coalition of economic(popular services) nodes (~50 services) agreeing to only see a certain versionbit of blocks after  certain date, thus threatens the mining pools to comply just to stay visible to such services. and knowing the partnership(sponsorship) that core devs have from those economic nodes. you start to see the centralisation pattern

code doesnt write itself and user nodes are not required to run new code for a feature to activate. thus the control is not decentralised

learn lessons from the past using available current/historic public code releases/features and also block data.(not social group PR scripts) then you can learn what to watch out for to stop it getting worse(more centralised)

but im going to guess with your 7 years of involvement, if you have not learned the abusive utility of the backward compatibility trick to not require user majority to activate a feature. you sure as hell dont seem to want to learn. but i hope it changes soon before you fall further down the hole you dig for yourself

pretending its fully decentralised to stroke people to sleep is not healthy for the network.. ignorance is not a defence.. instead recognising central points of failure and highlighting them to keep them from repeatedly abusing their control techniques.

hold them to account. make them accountable for their actions
code doesnt write itself and those that write it dont receive money for nothing, they get paid for a reason. research it