Gary Gensler: "Bitcoin is not that decentralized"

[thecodebear]

OP, Gary Gensler's only goal is to attack Bitcoin and make people not want it. He's lying to you. If you're believing what he is saying then that is a win for him. Generally people who hate Bitcoin don't tell the truth about it. He is just tricking you. Is Bitcoin perfectly decentralized? No. Of course not. Nothing is. Is Bitcoin by far the most decentralized thing we have? Yes.

[Hamza2424]

haaainnnn... Really Bitcoin is not that decentralized does he even realize what decentralization means, hmm I can agree on some point that whales acquire most of Bitcoin's supply still we cant point out that it's a massive supply centralization, still, the supply is distributed well, I would like to say on the network concerns Bitcoin is far more decentralized nd with time, I'm expecting the expansion of the network on next scale but for the supply concerns now the market is much mature comparing to the times of 2016s..

Haha.. Anyway does Bitcoiners care about it ahhh not at all, We are in the joy of 50k + so neglect him from wold.

[d5000]

I'm afraid he's right, especially when CEXs hold most of BTC's circulating supply (eg: Binance). It's even worse now with the recent approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs by the SEC. Institutional investment companies like BlackRock, VanEck, and MicroStrategy are accumulating large amounts of the cryptocurrency.

Yes, I think this is a problem (not a very severe one however, see below). However, the answer to the question if Bitcoin is "less decentralized" due to developments like the ETF approvals in the US for me has no easy answer.

I disagree somewhat with this popular meaning for example:

Gary Gensler doesn't understand that the decentralization of bitcoin is about the full nodes and the miners involved, not about the number of wallets containing big funds (and frankly, those are still plenty too).

My assessment is that both are important: the "mining decentralization" and the "economic decentralization". The "users" (also called "economic nodes") have the power to accept or not accept the blocks the miners mine, so if a miner cartel tried to mine with an updated code changing important parameters (e.g. the 21 million limit) the economic nodes can accept them or not. The more concentrated these nodes are, the more likely it is that they could also be co-opted by the miners cartel. And let me not even begin mentioning gubermental pressure, above all if services are too concentrated in one region like the US.

@adaseb has a point when he writes that the CEX's/ETF's funds are not their property but their customers'. That is correct. However, this does not mean these entities don't play a role in the power structure of the Bitcoin ecosystem.

One example is for example what happened in 2017 when the big block/small block war was fought out. We were lucky that almost all exchanges preserved the "Bitcoin" moniker for the original chain, and not for the hard forked chain today called "B[itcoin] Cash". Such an event can repeat. The problem is that while in theory customers could boycott/leave an exchange or ETF "behaving maliciously", most customers are quite passive and would simply accept what the exchange or service provider is doing.

So in general it does make sense to educate people that they should try to hold their Bitcoins on their own wallets with their own keys. It would be better for the ecosystem in general. However, due to the multiplicity of economic actors, I currently don't see a critical situation. The US ETFs could even have improved the situation, as before the biggest exchanges (like Binance) were probably even more dominant.

If BTC becomes compromised, what's stopping us from moving to a more decentralized chain in the future (Litecoin, Monero)?

I think at least it's a good idea to have some strong decentralized "backup chains" just for the case. It would be healthy if there was a decentralized chain at least as strong as BNB for example, if not as Ethereum. But there seems a long way to go for that to happen, as presently 90%+ of the altcoin crowd doesn't care at all about decentralization. I'm optimistic for the long term though, eventually the centralized altcoin bubble will pop in my opinion.

[thecodebear]

The large amount of bitcoins held at CEX like Binance or etfs like IBIT are not owned by one entity. They are their customers funds. So what you are saying doesn’t apply.

That's a good point. Usually when people try to make the claim that Bitcoin is not decentralized, they misuse certain facts.

They say mining is centralized because of mining pools, not understanding that the mining pools don't own the miners and its just a bunch of different people participating in a group.

They say mining is centralized because a lot of it is in one country (whether thats China or US or wherever), not realizing that thousands of different entities (people and companies) mining within the same country it not at all the same thing as a single entity (though of course it is always preferable that mining is geographical decentralized as well).

They say that the ETF firms are gonna own a ton of bitcoin, not understanding that the ETF firms are holding the Bitcoin for clients, and when clients sell the firm sells the bitcoin, people aren't just donating money to ETF firms so the firms can buy themselves a ton of bitcoin haha.

They say that exchanges have all the Bitcoin, again not understanding this isn't the exchange's money but they are just holding the bitcoin for their customers. We saw with FTX what happens when a company takes customers' money and then tries to treat the crypto those customers bought as the company's own money. It's called fraud.

People also seem to not understand the difference between owning bitcoin and operating the Bitcoin infrastructure which runs the network. Bitcoin is not proof-of-stake, where ownership of coins equals control over part of the operations of the network. Bitcoin separates owners from operators, thus keeping it decentralized no matter who owns however many bitcoins.

[legiteum]

The large amount of bitcoins held at CEX like Binance or etfs like IBIT are not owned by one entity. They are their customers funds. So what you are saying doesn’t apply.

When it comes to decentralization I think the way the hash power is distributed is more important. I remember back in the early days there was over 51% of hashpower in a single pool. We don’t have that problem anymore. China has less hashpower than before and it’s more distributed throughout the planet.

I actually think that's his whole point: those customers own an entry in an Oracle database that is attached to their real-world identity. They don't know anything about "decentralized" and they don't care.

Most holders of Bitcoin don't benefit from the "decentralized" nature of Bitcoin, nor do they care.

Since Bitcoin could never scale to being a mainstream digital currency that could handle worldwide transaction volume, it's only remaining utility is to be an investment instrument--which is exactly how it's used today.

And since that is, de facto, how most people use the product, then he's right in saying it's not really decentralized in a way that most consumers care about.

[Cookdata]

I'm afraid he's right, especially when CEXs hold most of BTC's circulating supply (eg: Binance). It's even worse now with the recent approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs by the SEC. Institutional investment companies like BlackRock, VanEck, and MicroStrategy are accumulating large amounts of the cryptocurrency.

We're essentially selling our BTC to companies driven by mainstream governments' own interests. With this, Bitcoin's true value proposition has failed (banks win). At least, the code is open source. If BTC becomes compromised, what's stopping us from moving to a more decentralized chain in the future (Litecoin, Monero)?

Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

I don't like Gary Gensler especially that rug pull scam of ETF Twitter hack that happened but as much as I like to defend Bitcoin, he is not far from the truth but that doesn't make Bitcoin not decentralized. It's a great concern with the large number of Bitcoin that are concentrated on Centralized exchanges but this Bitcoin doesn't belong to the exchange, it belongs to the people. If today all the people want to withdraw their coins from exchanges, many of them will ran into one problem or the other because they don't have exact number of Bitcoin they owe people. However, people don't even care about this at all, they don't imagine the possibility of how exchanges might run away with their money when anything hoes wrong.

Decentralized exchanges are not that simple and I must confess that one of the basic thing that make people like centralized exchanges is because of simplicity. Look at how simple uniswap exchange is, if they can create something more unique and simple like that, I believe a lot of people will use it and not depend on centralized exchanges.

Gary should face his business, he has been saying off statement these days ever since he granted Bitcoin ETF.

[tabas]

With that context he's saying about Bitcoin and exchanges, yeah, no need to argue as most of the centralized exchanges have been keeping a huge number of deposits from their customers. Even it is not from them, it's like a funnel that goes on them and so as Gensler says that it's sort of not actual decentralization, it goes with the system in the exchanges and shouldn't be on Bitcoin. Bitcoin alone is decentralized and that's why he's mixing it up to make it look like that Bitcoin is as what he says but in reality, there's an involvement with the exchanges and obviously, many have been depositing their Bitcoins there to sell or just simply hold which is a very wrong idea and we always give reminder not to keep it there.

[Faisal2202]

Gensler is right but to some extent only, because if there were any loophole in the code of BTC then it would be found till now, but there is no, but it still embarked on the centralized path due to the ETFs approval, high money involvement, but truly that's not that much, according to ETF tracker website, 10 ETFs have around 719,321 BTC in their holdings, and I read somewhere that 11 ETFs have around more then 111K BTC, I don't know how true is that, but the thing is we are not really going toward centralization by the authorities, it's just most of the BTC newcomers are only into BTC for money, they are creating hype of ETFs, making it something big, not only newcomers but they are the ones influenced by old comers.

They are creating a hype bubble, which is a good one though but it will pop with time, BTC can't be centralized by any means, if all the people using it start to run a node for validation purposes only, (just a thought), that would be a contribution towards BTC but the power consumption and other costs are high and newbies (not making money) can't really contribute but at least the ones making money should do. And according to CMC, Binance has around 426,701.49 BTC, which is less than those 10 ETFs combined, so, I think CEXs reserves don't matter that much.

And you know the funds of 10 ETFs are custoded by Coinbase, the competitor of Binance which was sued for the same reason Binance was sued, but Binance is the one forced to leave the country while coinbase was saved. That's not a coincidence.

[franky1]

The "users" (also called "economic nodes") have the power to accept or not accept the blocks the miners mine, so if a miner cartel tried to mine with an updated code changing important parameters (e.g. the 21 million limit) the economic nodes can accept them or not. The more concentrated these nodes are, the more likely it is that they could also be co-opted by the miners cartel. And let me not even begin mentioning gubermental pressure, above all if services are too concentrated in one region like the US.

economic nodes are the business services, like exchange services, which mining pools depend on for their coin rewards to be seen by, and miners of those pools depend on so they can cash out and pay bills with their reward splits
(user nodes are a few levels down and of lesser importance to the network/economy/politics)
in short miners follow their rewards and if a merchant is not accepting their rewards(threats of rejecting blocks after mandatory date) they have to change their block format/money presentation to their services acceptable desires,

the power triangle is
  
                      other software
                 following core reference
                                 |
                            core dev
                             politics
                                /\
               economic  /__\ mining
             / full nodes         pools  \
      user                                   miners
     fullnodes
         |
 user pruned
 user stripped(backward/unupgraded)
    nodes
         

when users of any level or miner want to withdraw coins from an exchange or to an exchange. they play to whatever the majority services use. else they cant do anything.

when services collaborate with core devs because businesses dont have their own dev team so rely on core as the reference development of software they rely on.. economic nodes just follow core dev politics or be left running with outdated code that doesnt fully validate everything

if mining pools dont follow thee politics and have economic nodes threaten that their blocks would be rejected(unseen) the pools fall inline

and because core have become the defacto reference client.. its all become defacto centralised of follow the leader as the choices are not there

[davis196]

We're essentially selling our BTC to companies driven by mainstream governments' own interests. With this, Bitcoin's true value proposition has failed (banks win). At least, the code is open source. If BTC becomes compromised, what's stopping us from moving to a more decentralized chain in the future (Litecoin, Monero)?

It is theoretically possible for the governments and central banks to make Bitcoin centralized. What makes you think that it would be impossible for the governments and central banks to take control over any decentralized altcoin like Litecoin or Monero?
I guess that Gensler is mistaking decentralization with redistribution. A few big corporations can hold most of the BTC in existence, but the BTC blockchain will remain decentralized, as long as there are multiple BTC miners and nodes. Anyway, the process of concentration of capital and resources in the hands of a few major corporations is completely natural. Bitcoin is no different than any financial asset. It's normal for most BTC in circulation to be bought by several big banks and corporations. BTC is a scarce financial asset with big potential for a higher price in the future.

[Despairo]

They say that exchanges have all the Bitcoin, again not understanding this isn't the exchange's money but they are just holding the bitcoin for their customers. We saw with FTX what happens when a company takes customers' money and then tries to treat the crypto those customers bought as the company's own money. It's called fraud.

How you can make sure if Binance, Coinbase, Gemini, Kraken, Kucoin, ETFs, institutions and other centralized entities aren't fraudsters? don't forget with the popular idiom "don't trust, verify".

No one can know the credibility of those centralized entities, what if they stole all of the money and use "hack" as the excuse?

People also seem to not understand the difference between owning bitcoin and operating the Bitcoin infrastructure which runs the network. Bitcoin is not proof-of-stake, where ownership of coins equals control over part of the operations of the network. Bitcoin separates owners from operators, thus keeping it decentralized no matter who owns however many bitcoins.

Imagine if all Bitcoin has been mined and all of them belong to centralized entities, they force people to buy, sell and hold Bitcoin in the centralized exchanges. Can we say Bitcoin is still decentralized? decentralized in theory, but no longer decentralized in practical.

[legiteum]

[...]
I guess that Gensler is mistaking decentralization with redistribution.
[...]

He's really not. If you read what he says in context, you'd see that he's pointing out that almost all investors in Bitcoin don't physically hold their own private key, meaning that their holding of Bitcoin is stored in some centralized Oracle database just like any bank account or brokerage holder would be.

For almost all individual holders of Bitcoin, there is nothing "decentralized" about Bitcoin--it's just a brand name they are betting will become incrementally more popular, meaning the value of their holding will go up in value so they can sell it at a profit.

You can talk all day long about what Bitcoin is supposed to be, the reality is that it's just not used that way by most investors. For most it's no more "decentralized" than AAPL, MSFT, or USD in a checking account.

[franky1]

They say that exchanges have all the Bitcoin, again not understanding this isn't the exchange's money but they are just holding the bitcoin for their customers. We saw with FTX what happens when a company takes customers' money and then tries to treat the crypto those customers bought as the company's own money. It's called fraud.

be sure to read the terms and conditions of signing up to a service. as that is the binding/unbinding of any legal claim you can make of funds you give to a service

many scams actually wrote terms where the funds were not customers. or wrote in ways that left customers with no legal claim..
giving someone else, some other service your coins/funds does NOT mean defacto remain your ownership. the devil is in the detail of the small print
the terms could be wrote that all deposits are treated as gifts/donations and any returns are at sole discretion of service.
the terms could be wrote that all deposits are held in trust, but at sole discretion of service they can close anyones account without notice and without offering refunds. and that then becomes the services right to do so, as you signed(by using service you are showing signs of agreement to terms) to say you agree to those terms


even with the FTX case, lawyers had to check on the published details of the customer application terms/conditions of different dates to classify FTX customers. not all customers had same terms and thus some customers were separated into different classes.
https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/10/16/sbf-trial-what-did-ftxs-terms-of-service-say-about-customer-funds/

[EarnOnVictor]

In a recent interview with SEC chairman Gary Gensler, there was something that caught my attention. The chairman stated that "Bitcoin is not that decentralized". That's "partially due to the prominence of centralized crypto exchanges". You can read all about it here: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/14/cnbc-transcript-sec-chair-gary-gensler-speaks-with-cnbcs-squawk-box-today-.html

I'm afraid he's right, especially when CEXs hold most of BTC's circulating supply (eg: Binance). It's even worse now with the recent approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs by the SEC. Institutional investment companies like BlackRock, VanEck, and MicroStrategy are accumulating large amounts of the cryptocurrency.

Are you surprised? I am not. Regulation is non-negotiable in the crypto world, and what we've seen is just the tip of the iceberg. In the next 10 years or thereabout, you would have seen enough regulation that would have further lessened the decentralization of Bitcoin. By the principle of operation, Bitcoin is decentralised and nothing may change that, but when it comes to the way businesses are being built around it, you can't say that anymore.

We first had the centralised exchanges and other centralised systems allowing Bitcoin that the government has been on their neck, and now again, the ETF, what do you expect? The usage will be more centralised. I see nothing so different from how the fiat currencies are being overseen by the authorities in this regard. I don't think that the government can ever allow what is dealing with money to be happening without having a say in it, so I understand their plight too. However, people have a choice, they can try to do it without the use of any centralised system. It is so possible as far as Bitcoin is concerned. This is just a choice in my thoughts, but I am certain that the decentralized system can cover up, at least for now.

However, I used "at least for now" because, with time, the government might start clamping down on decentralised websites and apps, it is only a matter of time. I hope people can refer to my warning when the term comes.

[m2017]

Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

I've seen a lot this misconception about Bitcoin decentralization. Actually I've just answered in another topic about this.
Gary Gensler doesn't understand that the decentralization of bitcoin is about the full nodes and the miners involved, not about the number of wallets containing big funds (and frankly, those are still plenty too).
And allow me to be a bit mean: maybe he confused it with Ethereum.

Isn’t this the same Gensler who is the antagonist of bitcoin? Is it possible to hear “kind” words from him about bitcoin? Of course not. All these government or near-government officials actually have a vague understanding of bitcoin and the principles of its operation. Therefore, in their statements, in attempts to discredit the bitcoin by identifying shortcomings, they only show their ignorance in understanding this issue. In short, they don't have sufficient expertise on this topic, and therefore, what they say can't be taken as truth.

[franky1]

gensler knows of bitcoin. he taught it at MIT

but his job, common sense, rationality prevents him from screaming "invest invest invest, i trust it with my life"
he has to say the risk averse standard disclaimer wordage, the stand back-ish stance and ofcourse needs to play to his bosses preferences

E.Warren sits on many boards that decide the direction SEC should follow. going against her and his own job would not play right for him


many people in this forum wish everyone would never mention any negatives and only scream out the utopian dream hype mountain of hope..

yet many smart people and investors actually do want a fair open dialogue of good and bad. to do due diligence and make a decision based on merits of both sides.
after all. if there is too much positivity, the words "too good to be true" start to play out and things start to sound like a scam
also trying to hide or have the negatives dismissed does not look good either.. so its better to just be open to even mention that things are not perfect, nothing ever is

by accepting bitcoins as an asset to be invested, is acknowledgement that its an asset that wont vanish easily. and thats all most people need to hear, the risk averse disclaimer after is just normal speak to expect

..
as for other large institutional influencers.. we can find positives in their negatives too
take the "bitcoin is rat poison²"

i fully agree with that statement
everyone knows wallstreet is the rat race.. and thus fiat is the rat. so if bitcoin is the thing that can poison fiat exponentially. wouldnt that make it a good thing to say for bitcoiners

[Natsuu]

With that context he's saying about Bitcoin and exchanges, yeah, no need to argue as most of the centralized exchanges have been keeping a huge number of deposits from their customers. Even it is not from them, it's like a funnel that goes on them and so as Gensler says that it's sort of not actual decentralization, it goes with the system in the exchanges and shouldn't be on Bitcoin. Bitcoin alone is decentralized and that's why he's mixing it up to make it look like that Bitcoin is as what he says but in reality, there's an involvement with the exchanges and obviously, many have been depositing their Bitcoins there to sell or just simply hold which is a very wrong idea and we always give reminder not to keep it there.

Yeah I think hes just confusing everyone. Gensler's talking about exchanges holding a ton of Bitcoin which messes with the whole decentralization vibe. People dumping their BTC on exchanges is a problem. Remember not your keys not your coins! Keep that crypto safe in your own wallet, not on some exchange

[Smack That Ace]

Bitcoin is a community-managed asset and it is not owned by anyone. So whether it is truly decentralized or not will be judged by the whole world and the community, it cannot become centralized just because Gary Gensler says it is centralized. And any individual or government has no right to decide whether bitcoin is centralized or decentralized. So I think we don't need to worry too much about what this guy says about bitcoin. What he says won't change anything or have any impact on bitcoin, so why do we care what he says?

[Wind_FURY]

In a recent interview with SEC chairman Gary Gensler, there was something that caught my attention. The chairman stated that "Bitcoin is not that decentralized". That's "partially due to the prominence of centralized crypto exchanges". You can read all about it here: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/14/cnbc-transcript-sec-chair-gary-gensler-speaks-with-cnbcs-squawk-box-today-.html

I'm afraid he's right, especially when CEXs hold most of BTC's circulating supply (eg: Binance). It's even worse now with the recent approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs by the SEC. Institutional investment companies like BlackRock, VanEck, and MicroStrategy are accumulating large amounts of the cryptocurrency.

We're essentially selling our BTC to companies driven by mainstream governments' own interests. With this, Bitcoin's true value proposition has failed (banks win). At least, the code is open source. If BTC becomes compromised, what's stopping us from moving to a more decentralized chain in the future (Litecoin, Monero)?

Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

But what's the threshold/the percentage of total circulating supply to be held by one entity, or a cartel of centralized entities working together, before we can truly say that Bitcoin has centralized towards said entities and has failed?

I have been asking that question, not because I was trying to find at what percentage is the threshold, but to know what others believe might the threshold might be. No one would give a direct opinion. Hahaha.

[franky1]

In a recent interview with SEC chairman Gary Gensler, there was something that caught my attention. The chairman stated that "Bitcoin is not that decentralized". That's "partially due to the prominence of centralized crypto exchanges". You can read all about it here: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/14/cnbc-transcript-sec-chair-gary-gensler-speaks-with-cnbcs-squawk-box-today-.html

I'm afraid he's right, especially when CEXs hold most of BTC's circulating supply (eg: Binance). It's even worse now with the recent approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs by the SEC. Institutional investment companies like BlackRock, VanEck, and MicroStrategy are accumulating large amounts of the cryptocurrency.

We're essentially selling our BTC to companies driven by mainstream governments' own interests. With this, Bitcoin's true value proposition has failed (banks win). At least, the code is open source. If BTC becomes compromised, what's stopping us from moving to a more decentralized chain in the future (Litecoin, Monero)?

Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

But what's the thrshold/the percentage of total circulating supply to be held by one entity, or a cartel of centralized entities working together, before we can truly say that Bitcoin has centralized towards said entities and has failed?

I have been asking that question, not because I was trying to find at what percentage is the threshold, but to know what others believe might the threshold might be. No one would give a direct opinion. Hahaha.

ask your mentor.. he is the one not wanting normal people spending on the bitcoin network and instead locking coin up to use other systems requiring middlemen handing the payments in some other system