What if they centralized Bitcoin?

[legiteum]

Today, I'll offer the forum a thought experiment.

Imagine that one day, the core devs of Bitcoin would come to a consensus that:

• Today, Bitcoin is simply an investment and value store, not a "currency" for most of its users.
• Today, most holders of Bitcoin do so in a centralized way, e.g. with a broker or an app.
• Bitcoin has failed its original purpose of being able to thwart government subpoenas since it is subject to chain analysis (and hence has opened the door to competitors like Monera for this niche need).
• Bitcoin could never become a mainstream currency since it was intentionally designed to be slow and expensive.
• With so much adoption and awareness from its popularity as an investment instrument, Bitcoin could become a mainstream worldwide currency if it were made to be fast and cheap, allowing it to be used for everyday transactions e.g. a parking meter or a cup of coffee.
• Mainstream adoption of Bitcoin like this would probably send the price of Bitcoin into orbit.
  
  

The only way that you could make Bitcoin fast and cheap enough to transact such that it would be superior to (say) ordinary credit card transactions would be to centralize the architecture. In other words, instead of a consensus algorithm among thousands of anonymous servers, Bitcoin would be backed with an architecture controlled by a single legal entity and a trusted set of servers, eliminating the need for proof-of-work and eliminating vast amounts of complexity to the system, immensely streamlining Bitcoin transactions.

In this scenario, Bitcoin could truly take over as a worldwide mainstream currency, with consumers replacing their everyday transactions with Bitcoin transactions.

However, also in this scenario, Bitcoin would lose some of its "mythology" or "religion" since it started as a way to transact without the possibility of a government discovering the parties of its transactions.

But in this scenario, almost all of Bitcoin's current users--and millions (or potentially billions) more--would only notice that Bitcoin is very fast and very cheap to transact with, and that millions of ordinary vendors now accept Bitcoin as retail payments, for instance.

All it would take is for Bitcoin's core devs to change their minds.


Could this happen? If not, why not?

[1715466376]

1715466376

[1715466376]

1715466376

[1715466376]

1715466376

[btc78]

Could this happen? If not, why not?

It seems like you have thought deeply about this and I am pretty sure anyone who wanted to and is skillful enough can actually implement this but I think bitcoin has left such a mark to our world that the financial system will never be the same again.

Even if bitcoin becomes centralized I am pretty sure there would be more altcoins being developed thanks to what we have learned from bitcoin’s network.

[Maus0728]

I don't think that it can be done, it's working on a PoW system, I'm sure that in a centralized network, that's not how you would run things. Making bitcoin centralized means you got to own all of the mining networks or control all of them because the miners serves as a way to validate transactions and they're all moving independently from each other. It's also a big change if we did push for centralization because that's the total opposite of bitcoin and it's core tenets, centralization also means that bitcoin is susceptible to the manipulation of powerful few and that's not something I'd want to see for myself happening.

[Slow death]

satoshi was very intelligent, I highly doubt that he didn't foresee that in the future governments would force bitcoin exchanges to request documents, I highly doubt that he thought that bitcoin regulation would be inevitable. satoshi is not someone from the third world, 10 years ago in third world countries like my country, the government of my country had many limitations in regulating many things, because they did not have people with technical training to carry out inspections and create rules adequate about a lot of things. but in first world countries, 10 years ago governments already regulated everything they saw, so satoshi would not be naive to think that bitcoin would be a currency used in all countries without governments not putting their rules in their countries about how citizens of that country should use bitcoin

he was a genius so he must have thought of it. Today Bitcoin remains decentralized and is doing very well that way. now for people to buy bitcoin, sell bitcoin and buy things using bitcoin, governments have set their rules, laws. As exchanges are owned by private people and need banks, they had to give in, and this was inevitable from the day bitcoin was created. No government would let its citizens deal with a currency without putting in place rules on how that currency should be dealt with in their country. That's why, in my opinion, I don't see any reason for us to complain about anything today. bitcoin is being well regarded by governments, by large investors and this is a very good thing, because it allows bitcoin and fiat to both be used without people fighting and getting into paranoia that fiat should end, when they know that fighting with governments about ending fiat, and useless. That's why in my opinion no one would think of centralizing bitcoin

[harapan]

If bitcoin is centralized we'll be laid off from most opportunities and important features that we're now enjoying like security,liquidity,and several other negative consequences to all users will likely emerge.
If bitcoin finally becomes centralized,its likable features will gradually diminish and alter its impacts to the financial systems.However,the fact that bitcoin wants to become centralized,this will reduce users trust within this cryptocurreny space.

Bitcoin's foundation is verified,secured and there's no way I think that's happening;there's no room for bitcoin centralization.

[Dunamisx]

Don't just bring in some ideas that are not possible or being realistic about bitcoin, for someone who understand what bitcoin is and how decentralized it has always been, then there is no how we can make an application for the use of this p2p network under a centralized network, we shouldn't bother ourself on anything regarding that, bitcoin network follows the consensus of bitcoin protocols with the blockchain network, which as long as this remain, there i no how we can have it centralized.

[legiteum]

I don't think that it can be done, it's working on a PoW system, I'm sure that in a centralized network, that's not how you would run things. Making bitcoin centralized means you got to own all of the mining networks or control all of them because the miners serves as a way to validate transactions and they're all moving independently from each other. It's also a big change if we did push for centralization because that's the total opposite of bitcoin and it's core tenets, centralization also means that bitcoin is susceptible to the manipulation of powerful few and that's not something I'd want to see for myself happening.

Getting rid of PoW would be the whole point.

Bitcoin's software could be changed by the core developers just like any software system could be changed. The process to move Bitcoin to a centralized architecture would be a complicated one, but straight-forward, on the whole.

And the only reason miners are even relevant is because of the software as well. They could be written out of existence with a few lines of code .

If bitcoin is centralized we'll be laid off from most opportunities and important features that we're now enjoying like security,liquidity,and several other negative consequences to all users will likely emerge.
If bitcoin finally becomes centralized,its likable features will gradually diminish and alter its impacts to the financial systems.However,the fact that bitcoin wants to become centralized,this will reduce users trust within this cryptocurreny space.

Bitcoin's foundation is verified,secured and there's no way I think that's happening;there's no room for bitcoin centralization.

There are lots of ways to achieve security besides the way Bitcoin does it. And if Bitcoin was faster and cheaper to transact, that seems like it would only make it more liquid, not less.

Most users of Bitcoin today don't even know what "decentralized" means, and since they use it through an app or a broker, they aren't even exposed to this feature in any way.

We're talking about getting rid of a feature that only perhaps 1% of this product's users even care about, in exchange for broadening it's appeal massively.

Don't just bring in some ideas that are not possible or being realistic about bitcoin, [...]

If Bitcoin's core devs wanted to centralized Bitcoin, they could centralized Bitcoin. There's nothing stopping them.

[R100K-Martin-Lunger]

While you have clearly given it a lot of thought and time, OP, I don't think it will happen. Centralizing bitoin goes against its essence. Its selling points are that it is decentralized, secure, and verified. Centralizing it would defeat its very point and the allure it holds over crypto investors as the original decentralized currency.

[darkv0rt3x]

I just would like to add that the article from media that you (OP) referenced has several incongruencies, in my opinion.

I didn't rea it all but right from the start it goes wrong in my opinion. It says it's slow. This is all relative. It's relative compared to what? I can say it is fast compated with our traditional fiat system where you have to wait for several days to settle an interbank transaction. 10 minutes is quite fast.

In some banks if you go to the agency in person and ask your account manager to give you 5k€/$/whatever, you will pay a high fee just to get your own money out. In Bitcoin, at least before the Ordinals, Incriptions and Runes crap, you would probably pay a network fee 10x smaller that the one from your bank. So, it is cheap.

It all depends on what you consider a standard definition for fast, cheat, whatever!

[Upgrade00]

Today, I'll offer the forum a thought experiment.

Imagine that one day, the core devs of Bitcoin would come to a consensus that:

• Today, Bitcoin is simply an investment and value store, not a "currency" for most of its users.
• Today, most holders of Bitcoin do so in a centralized way, e.g. with a broker or an app.
• Bitcoin has failed its original purpose of being able to thwart government subpoenas since it is subject to chain analysis (and hence has opened the door to competitors like Monera for this niche need).
• Bitcoin could never become a mainstream currency since it was intentionally designed to be slow and expensive.
• With so much adoption and awareness from its popularity as an investment instrument, Bitcoin could become a mainstream worldwide currency if it were made to be fast and cheap, allowing it to be used for everyday transactions e.g. a parking meter or a cup of coffee.
• Mainstream adoption of Bitcoin like this would probably send the price of Bitcoin into orbit.
  
  

Are these hypothetical situations or problems you have highlighted in Bitcoin? If it's the latter, let me argue some of them;

• This is true for most but it is still being used as a currency. When you factor in the number of years since it went life we are still right on track in terms of adoption.
• True and this is problematic to the network.
• False. This was never the original purpose of Bitcoin and it was never private either. Chain analysis is just a fancy word for reading an already public chain and drawing connections base of previous transactions.
• Haven't read the link yet,
• The world is not in need of a fast and cheap means of transacting, they already have a variety of option, Bitcoin will not still finish top if it becomes centralized.
• An even more volatile means of paying for a cup of coffee?

In other words, instead of a consensus algorithm among thousands of anonymous servers, Bitcoin would be backed with an architecture controlled by a single legal entity and a trusted set of servers, eliminating the need for proof-of-work and eliminating vast amounts of complexity to the system, immensely streamlining Bitcoin transactions.

In essence it will become just like any of the thousand other worthless altcoins.

[legiteum]

I just would like to add that the article from media that you (OP) referenced has several incongruencies, in my opinion.

I didn't rea it all but right from the start it goes wrong in my opinion. It says it's slow. This is all relative. It's relative compared to what? I can say it is fast compated with our traditional fiat system where you have to wait for several days to settle an interbank transaction.

If you actually read the whole article, you'd understand the context in which is was written, and you'd have the answer to your question (?).

(And it's not like the article is very long...).

[darkv0rt3x]

I just would like to add that the article from media that you (OP) referenced has several incongruencies, in my opinion.

I didn't rea it all but right from the start it goes wrong in my opinion. It says it's slow. This is all relative. It's relative compared to what? I can say it is fast compated with our traditional fiat system where you have to wait for several days to settle an interbank transaction.

If you actually read the whole article, you'd understand the context in which is was written, and you'd have the answer to your question (?).

(And it's not like the article is very long...).

I tend not to read when I see things that are not clear since the very beginning! That's why!

[hatshepsut93]

First, Core devs so far rejected all the proposed changes that would lead to even small centralization. Does this mean that this will continue in the future? We can't predict what Core devs will be in 100 years from now, but in the observable near future it's safe to assume that they will keep maintaining decentralization.

Next, extreme centralization will simply quickly kill Bitcoin. Many banks around the world already offer instant zero fee transactions without bank maintenance charges and offer cashback on top of it. How can even a highly centralized Bitcoin compete against that? And if Bitcoin will try to keep being the libertarian money, it will suffer the fate of Liberty Reserve.

[legiteum]

Are these hypothetical situations or problems you have highlighted in Bitcoin? If it's the latter, let me argue some of them;

• This is true for most but it is still being used as a currency. When you factor in the number of years since it went life we are still right on track in terms of adoption.

Bitcoin is slower and more expensive to transact than ever before. I think it's very safe to assume that Bitcoin will never be used as a mainstream currency as long as it uses the blockchain architecture in the backend.

• False. This was never the original purpose of Bitcoin and it was never private either. Chain analysis is just a fancy word for reading an already public chain and drawing connections base of previous transactions.

I find this rather bizarre, and I didn't think what I had said was particularly controversial. Bitcoin was invented in the context of P2P networks, which are only necessary when you don't want governments able to observe or stop the transactions. Otherwise there is no reason to just use a central server, which is the way almost all of the internet works already. The p2p approach is slower, more expensive, more complicated, harder to use, and can easily be very dangerous for end-users. The only reason you resort to something like that is because you have to, e.g. you could be prosecuted if you don't.

• The world is not in need of a fast and cheap means of transacting, they already have a variety of option, Bitcoin will not still finish top if it becomes centralized.

This reminds of me of a famous quote: "640k ought to be enough for anybody" .

Credit card transactions are still pretty slow in computing terms, and are still pretty expensive. But more importantly, they require an exchange of personal information in the transaction, which is a major limitation.

• An even more volatile means of paying for a cup of coffee?

Touché .

But if transactions are fast and cheap enough, you can presumably have processes inside of your wallet to move your store of value to thing(s) that are more stable. Then you could only expose yourself to Bitcoin's volatility when that's what you wanted.

In essence it will become just like any of the thousand other worthless altcoins.

Maybe. Or maybe Bitcoin being used by 100x more people in the world will make the price go way up. Who knows.

[aoluain]

First, Core devs so far rejected all the proposed changes that would lead to even small centralization. Does this mean that this will continue in the future? We can't predict what Core devs will be in 100 years from now, but in the observable near future it's safe to assume that they will keep maintaining decentralization.

Next, extreme centralization will simply quickly kill Bitcoin. Many banks around the world already offer instant zero fee transactions without bank maintenance charges and offer cashback on top of it. How can even a highly centralized Bitcoin compete against that? And if Bitcoin will try to keep being the libertarian money, it will suffer the fate of Liberty Reserve.

Of course, disregarding and ditching one of Bitcoins key features would not end well.

I'm sure everyone has heard the phrase "killing the Goose who lays the Golden eggs"*
making Bitcoin centralised would kill Bitcoin. Having a global network of groups and
independent people mining and hosting nodes gives Bitcoin its security, anyone can
decide to do this if they want, development is carried out through consensus, anyone
can propose a change or upgrade to the network.

all these go with centralisation so why would everyone involved "kill the Goose that lays
the Golden eggs"?



* wikipedia.org

[legiteum]

Next, extreme centralization will simply quickly kill Bitcoin. Many banks around the world already offer instant zero fee transactions without bank maintenance charges and offer cashback on top of it. How can even a highly centralized Bitcoin compete against that? And if Bitcoin will try to keep being the libertarian money, it will suffer the fate of Liberty Reserve.

There are no banks in the world that offer instant (viz. sub-millisecond) transactions, and no banks that offer transactions for free, or pay you to transact with them. I don't know where you got that.

[oktana]

All you mention are facts, but it still doesn’t stop the major fact that Bitcoin is decentralized. The decentralization isn’t about what platform you hoard, trade, or pay Bitcoin in. It’s about how Bitcoin isn’t controlled or managed (in the way the bank has control) by anyone. I agree that Bitcoin can be slow and very expensive for transactions, but it was designed to be so. It definitely just happened to be so because Satoshi was focused on Decentralization than a direct competition with centralized Banks..

[NeuroticFish]

The only way that you could make Bitcoin fast and cheap enough to transact such that it would be superior to (say) ordinary credit card transactions would be to centralize the architecture. In other words, instead of a consensus algorithm among thousands of anonymous servers, Bitcoin would be backed with an architecture controlled by a single legal entity and a trusted set of servers, eliminating the need for proof-of-work and eliminating vast amounts of complexity to the system, immensely streamlining Bitcoin transactions.

In this scenario, Bitcoin could truly take over as a worldwide mainstream currency, with consumers replacing their everyday transactions with Bitcoin transactions.

I think that changing its architecture to a centralized one would not be that easy - both technically and politically - and I'll tell you why: a change like this would require consensus and if consensus is not reached you'll get a hard fork, i.e. an altcoin, losing all the "magic" that comes with being the actual Bitcoin.

Then, I've seen during the history (alt)coins that - in a way or another - gave up PoW. The result was that their price went down the drain.


So no. In this scenario you will obtain an altcoin nobody would use because its price will be small and dropping to smaller and, sadly, most people are in for bitcoin not because it's a currency you can use for payments, but because it's "digital gold".

[fikrett]

Could this happen? If not, why not?

It’s a fascinating scenario to ponder, but the likelihood of Bitcoin’s core developers moving towards centralization seems low, given their strong commitment to the principles of decentralization. However, in the ever-evolving world of cryptocurrency, never say never.

[GreatArkansas]

Let's get to the point if Bitcoin is centralized, no one will use Bitcoin anymore or invest because they know it is centralized and anyone can easily manipulate the network or even the price.
So for me, it is an easy answer. Bitcoin has value right now because it is decentralized because if not, there are lot of alternative to use it.