Could China (or similar) take control of Bitcoin?

[legiteum]

China probably could, but it's also probable that they could be kicked out of the network, [...]

Kicked out by whom?? How would this centralized control entity you keep inventing even know what part of the network is "China" and what isn't?

[...] and the "total damage" they caused in the network is some censored transactions, and a double-spend.

Um, that's...the whole network. That's what the network does. That's all that it does.

It would be stupid to believe that the Core Developers, the Economic Majority, and the users/community in general would merely follow Govcoin.

Sure. But it's even stupider to believe that those groups mean anything when the system is an algorithm that is not centrally controlled by them or anybody else.

(Again, it's simply mind blowing to me that so many people simply can't understand the implications of the word, "decentralized" and no matter what they have to invent some kind of central control of the system where none exists).

[Wind_FURY]

China probably could, but it's also probable that they could be kicked out of the network, [...]

Kicked out by whom?? How would this centralized control entity you keep inventing even know what part of the network is "China" and what isn't?

[...] and the "total damage" they caused in the network is some censored transactions, and a double-spend.

Um, that's...the whole network. That's what the network does. That's all that it does.

It would be stupid to believe that the Core Developers, the Economic Majority, and the users/community in general would merely follow Govcoin.

Sure. But it's even stupider to believe that those groups mean anything when the system is an algorithm that is not centrally controlled by them or anybody else.

(Again, it's simply mind blowing to me that so many people simply can't understand the implications of the word, "decentralized" and no matter what they have to invent some kind of central control of the system where none exists).

Ser, you present a debate as if they're happening in practice, but everything that has been discussed/debated are all mere hypotheticals. Plus I didn't invent the "centralized control entity", you did when you debated that you're absolutely sure an entity could get more than 51% hashing power and "control Bitcoin". Laughable.

Those groups matter because it's those groups that the community in general decided to follow. The social layer plays a big part in decentralized systems/blockchains.

[legiteum]

Ser, you present a debate as if they're happening in practice, but everything that has been discussed/debated are all mere hypotheticals. Plus I didn't invent the "centralized control entity", you did when you debated that you're absolutely sure an entity could get more than 51% hashing power and "control Bitcoin". Laughable.

Those groups matter because it's those groups that the community in general decided to follow. [...]

I have said, quite correctly, that any single entity that controls over 51% of the hashrate effectively controls Bitcoin regardless of what any other centralized entity wants or thinks.

The social layer plays a big part in decentralized systems/blockchains.

No, it doesn't. The exact opposite of this is true. Bitcoin is an algorithm, not a company, not a committee, not a "community", not any kind of human entity.

The thing that controls Bitcoin is the majority of the hashrate. Period. If it mattered what people "thought", then bad actors would infect the system even more easily than garnering 51% of the hashrate.

The software in a Bitcoin wallet does not "decide to follow the prevailing sentiment of the community", it simply picks from an IP address list, which is maintained by automated software.

What is laughable to me is that despite the entire Bitcoin concept being based around a decentralized architecture, many people seem to be unable to grasp what this actually means, and absolutely must impose a central authority in the system to be able to understand it.

The idea that there is a decentralized model not controlled by any single company, committee, "community", or government is a very unique and interested piece of technology, but I guess for some it's simply too scary to contemplate? The idea that there's not some "benevolent entity" watching over this valuable thing, making sure bad actors don't infect it? Maybe that's too terrifying for some to accept, but that's the reality with Bitcoin or any other truly decentralized architecture.