Has The Decentralization Concept Failed?

[ContentWriter]

Bitcoin, the first blockchain project, was built based on the concept of decentralization. Have you noticed that nearly every other project has team members that know one another? Even Ethereum, which claims to be decentralized, may have the email addresses of all its validators in one place. It very much seems that decentralization is no longer or has never been the vision of crypto projects since the days of Bitcoin. Why would a so-called blockchain product end up being linked to, say, a centralized exchange? Why are we no longer seeing qualitative, decentralized projects with anonymous teams? Even the Tornado Cash founders won't be in trouble today IF THEY WORKED ANONYMOUSLY AND FOCUSED ON DECENTRALIZATION. What seems obvious is that most blockchain products these days have their focus on making money and conforming to regulations, not giving people freedom from government control. That's why you see KYC everywhere.

[Apocollapse]

You will never achieve freedom if you live in centralized world, you need to pay tax, you need to use fiat, you can't do anything you want since your country have laws etc. Saying that freedom has finally failed is like it was successful, actually it never been success.

As for decentralization, there are still people who use Bitcoin without linking their identity by using no KYC exchange and hold in non custodial wallet.

Although the Non-VAPs keep declining and the data last in 2019, but people can still enjoy decentralization.


https://www.chainalysis.com/blog/bitcoin-market-data-exchanges-trading/

[dzungmobile]

You will never achieve freedom if you live in centralized world, you need to pay tax, you need to use fiat, you can't do anything you want since your country have laws etc. Saying that freedom has finally failed is like it was successful, actually it never been success.

As for decentralization, there are still people who use Bitcoin without linking their identity by using no KYC exchange and hold in non custodial wallet.

It's not true that if you use decentralized blockchain or platform, you will always have tax free. With Bitcoin blockchain, you only have to pay transaction fee but with altcoin blockchains and decentralized exchanges for altcoin trading, you will probably have to pay tax. It depends on that DEX policy and tax policy of that project.

Some altcoin projects like high inflationary altcoins in GameFi, Metaverse, NFT, can set very high sale tax fee.

Although the Non-VAPs keep declining and the data last in 2019, but people can still enjoy decentralization.


https://www.chainalysis.com/blog/bitcoin-market-data-exchanges-trading/

Thanks for the information that is interesting and it is my first time to know such a chart on VAPs, Non-VAPs. I notice it is some years ago and probably there are changing trend after Terra, FTX and some lending platforms in 2022.

[ranochigo]

You seem to have confused decentralization, anonymity and control. Anonymity is not guaranteed, and there are plenty of developers who maintain anonymity and certain people who are okay with their identity being revealed.

The issue with conforming with government regulations is often a double-edged sword. Bitcoin can never or could've never hit the growth that we're observing today if we didn't provide avenues for government to regulate CeFi exchanges. CoinBase, Binance and every other big crypto company that you're looking at today wouldn't be this big if they didn't want to comply with regulations.

Compromises should be made for Bitcoin to succeed. Not everything is about working against the government.

[ContentWriter]

You seem to have confused decentralization, anonymity and control. Anonymity is not guaranteed, and there are plenty of developers who maintain anonymity and certain people who are okay with their identity being revealed.

The issue with conforming with government regulations is often a double-edged sword. Bitcoin can never or could've never hit the growth that we're observing today if we didn't provide avenues for government to regulate CeFi exchanges. CoinBase, Binance and every other big crypto company that you're looking at today wouldn't be this big if they didn't want to comply with regulations.

Compromises should be made for Bitcoin to succeed. Not everything is about working against the government.

Nevertheless, any trade-offs should never compromise the concept of inclusivity, which decentralization promotes. If we had Bitcoin and governments could dictate its direction, thereby restricting citizens' access to it whimsically, it wouldn't have fulfilled its objectives just because a few centralized companies like Binance and Coinbase are making money. The concept of decentalization puts control in the hands of ordinary people. A Benduin in the deserts of Iraq should be able to make a financial transaction without recourse to the government's financial system. There should be no rule that says that all financial transactions I make in my country must be in fiat and that the government must know about them, at least until I exchange those funds. A peer-to-peer system should be accessible to all without governments' input. 

[ranochigo]

Nevertheless, any trade-offs should never compromise the concept of inclusivity, which decentralization promotes. If we had Bitcoin and governments could dictate its direction, thereby restricting citizens' access to it whimsically, it wouldn't have fulfilled its objectives just because a few centralized companies like Binance and Coinbase are making money. The concept of decentalization puts control in the hands of ordinary people. A Benduin in the deserts of Iraq should be able to make a financial transaction without recourse to the government's financial system. There should be no rule that says that all financial transactions I make in my country must be in fiat and that the government must know about them, at least until I exchange those funds. A peer-to-peer system should be accessible to all without governments' input. 

They do not. Bitcoin has never been under the influence of a government. We've never enacted or sought to enact any policies where it compromises the anonymity, or decentralized characteristics of Bitcoin. If Bitcoin has ever been under the control or influence of a government, then please do state it here.

Your point is made with the existence of centralized exchanges or services in mind and that is what I replied to.

[Marvelockg]

Has Bitcoin lost it decentralized nature? Bitcoin is still decentralized and many of the crypto that where modeled after Bitcoin still has thier decentralized nature but that doesn't mean that if the owners of such project choose to link themselves to the project and refuse being anonymous just like Satoshi did that it has changed it from being decentralized. The very concept of a coin being decentralized isn't even that the brain or team behind the creation of those kind of coin is known, as long as users have full control of the said coin instead of a single person or group of people having control of it, then it's decentralized.

That is the main issue with altcoin and the reason why most People don't still consider most of them an investible asset. Most of them aren't decentralized but have some level of possible manipulation that can go on with it which makes Bitcoin totally different from them. When using an exchange to buy your Bitcoin, you might provide your kyc which only reveals your anonymous self but doesn't still makes Bitcoin to become centralized. As long as you're not keeping your Bitcoin in a centralized exchange but you're securedly keeping it in a cold storage, you're just right on track and the concept of Bitcoin being decentralization hasn't failed a bit.

[pakhitheboss]

Even Ethereum, which claims to be decentralized, may have the email addresses of all its validators in one place.

Decentralized means no one has control over a concept and that everyone within the network contributes and control it. I do not think and believe that Ethereum is a decentralized cryptocurrency as it has multiple owners who can shut shop and escape with investors money. Although it is highly unlikely that such a scenario may happen due its popularity.

The rest of your blah blah.. is out of context and it seems you are trying to get something. In your scenario you are trying to get merits with your topics. Whereas it seems you lack the ability to create content that are interesting. 

[Hatchy]

Compromises should be made for Bitcoin to succeed. Not everything is about working against the government.

Definitely I think op is confusing him self with those terms. A decentralized system works without any third party or central authority having control of the system. That's different from be anonymous or having kyc. These new projects like I've said several times are just there to make profits for their developers. So I don't usually advice people to stress them self investing in such project. They might claim to be decentralized but they actually work on centralized networks where users might have to give out their personal information to use them. Bitcoin is nothing like them. It still decentralized and will remain that way for ever.  Government have tried but they hurt cannot control it. Except those who uses centralized exchanges or platforms to store their coins.

[AVE5]

Bitcoin, the first blockchain project, was built based on the concept of decentralization. Have you noticed that nearly every other project has team members that know one another? Even Ethereum, which claims to be decentralized, may have the email addresses of all its validators in one place. It very much seems that decentralization is no longer or has never been the vision of crypto projects since the days of Bitcoin. Why would a so-called blockchain product end up being linked to, say, a centralized exchange? Why are we no longer seeing qualitative, decentralized projects with anonymous teams? Even the Tornado Cash founders won't be in trouble today IF THEY WORKED ANONYMOUSLY AND FOCUSED ON DECENTRALIZATION. What seems obvious is that most blockchain products these days have their focus on making money and conforming to regulations, not giving people freedom from government control. That's why you see KYC everywhere.

There's an obvious contradiction here. The vision of inventing a digital currency like bitcoin in a blockchain is for decentralization purpose meaning users can be a self custodian to their funds unlike the fiats which is controlled by the government with a central authorities regulating the Centralized financial ecosystem.
If you want to remain anonymous with your bitcoin holding, then practically keep your assets on the decentralized networks where your funds are at your custody and you literally doesn't need to do KYC there.
The concept of KYC it for crypto users who may want to trade their bitcoin assets in exchange of the fiats through the Centralized exchanges networks. By so doing, you're to be let known that you're there by dragging closer to the government are you're to intersect your decentralized bitcoin to their centralized fiat currency. So then, KYC would be duly required where the government or an authority may have traceable through your resume of transacting with the banks which is under their custody.
That doesn't contradict the fact that bitcoin isn't keeping decentralization as meant to be.

[Deddyhoku]

The build centralized system from decentralized components. That pretty sad actually

[aoluain]

This is something a lot of people have been discussing since a lot of $hitcoins became
popular and some people got burned.

Bitcoin is the epitomy of a decentralised blockchain project. There are others I
guess which claim to be decentralised but they are questionable either in how
the project is managed, how data is collected or have a centralised group overseeing
the decentralised network.

Most people I figure who get into these projects dont care whether its decentralised
or not just as long as they can get a return.

[ContentWriter]

The build centralized system from decentralized components. That pretty sad actually

Not necessarily. They build what is supposed to be a decentralized platforms that can't be used without centralized platforms. An example is a blockchain browser I installed that needs centralized wallets to use/ Doesn't make sense,

This is something a lot of people have been discussing since a lot of $hitcoins became
popular and some people got burned.

Bitcoin is the epitomy of a decentralised blockchain project. There are others I
guess which claim to be decentralised but they are questionable either in how
the project is managed, how data is collected or have a centralised group overseeing
the decentralised network.

Most people I figure who get into these projects dont care whether its decentralised
or not just as long as they can get a return.

You just nailed it. I saw your comment after posting this, and you obviously understand what I'm driving at. I think the concept of decentralization is largely absent in most new projects at the managerial and operational levels. That's why, beyond Bitcoin and Monero, I hardly take most so-called blockchain projects seriously.

[thecodebear]

Bitcoin, the first blockchain project, was built based on the concept of decentralization. Have you noticed that nearly every other project has team members that know one another? Even Ethereum, which claims to be decentralized, may have the email addresses of all its validators in one place. It very much seems that decentralization is no longer or has never been the vision of crypto projects since the days of Bitcoin. Why would a so-called blockchain product end up being linked to, say, a centralized exchange? Why are we no longer seeing qualitative, decentralized projects with anonymous teams? Even the Tornado Cash founders won't be in trouble today IF THEY WORKED ANONYMOUSLY AND FOCUSED ON DECENTRALIZATION. What seems obvious is that most blockchain products these days have their focus on making money and conforming to regulations, not giving people freedom from government control. That's why you see KYC everywhere.

Yes Crypto has long since abandoned the idea of decentralization. Bitcoin is and has always been the only cryptocurrency focused on decentralization. This is well understood. Crypto never embraced the core ideas of Bitcoin - decentralization, global security, money - and instead turned towards the idea of somewhat centralized apps and shilling of tokens. Well Crypto back in the old days at least tried to embrace Bitcoin's most important values, but no altcoins could ever match Bitcoin so eventually they just abandoned that goal and, led by Ethereum, decided to just be app and token networks where decentralization is not the goal, but they still pretend like it is (how many crypto founders have said their token is just as decentralized as Bitcoin? lol, probably all over them) because it makes for good false marketing for them to pretend they are like Bitcoin.

[nelson4lov]

I think OP is confusing decentralization and anonymity. A blockchain network can be decentralized but team members don't have to be anonymous. You can create a chain like Litecoin, sell off all your incentives and just leave the network in the hands of the people. That works too. The fact that Satoshi left Bitcoin and maintained his unknown identity isn't the reason for Bitcoin being the most decentralized network. Bitcoin is the most decentralized because no-one identity controls the network consensus. It's important that we make that fact very clear.

As for newer projects, I want to believe that most of them are driven by VC funds and incentives that team members stand to gain. If a network is getting revenue from tx fees and other sources, they usually establish a foundation just to keep milking the incentives such that it becomes a fruit that keeps on giving.

[SamReomo]

Most of the early coins are still decentralized as no government or centralized entity owns or controls those coins and that's what we call decentralization.

Bitcoin is still decentralized as Satoshi has left it in the hands of the community and so are many others good altcoins.

If you mean privacy coins then Monero is a good example of a privacy coin but these days exchanges try to remove privacy coins to be safe from governments.

And to tackle that issue, we see decentralized exchanges that aren't controlled by any centralized governments or persons and can be used by anyone to even trade privacy coins.

[Slow death]

Bitcoin, the first blockchain project, was built based on the concept of decentralization. Have you noticed that nearly every other project has team members that know one another? Even Ethereum, which claims to be decentralized, may have the email addresses of all its validators in one place. It very much seems that decentralization is no longer or has never been the vision of crypto projects since the days of Bitcoin. Why would a so-called blockchain product end up being linked to, say, a centralized exchange? Why are we no longer seeing qualitative, decentralized projects with anonymous teams? Even the Tornado Cash founders won't be in trouble today IF THEY WORKED ANONYMOUSLY AND FOCUSED ON DECENTRALIZATION. What seems obvious is that most blockchain products these days have their focus on making money and conforming to regulations, not giving people freedom from government control. That's why you see KYC everywhere.

In my opinion I only see bitcoin being decentralized, altcoins are centralized and honestly I don't see anything wrong with that, because at the end of the day people will use centralized exchanges, they will use bank accounts, they will use crypto casinos that are also centralized. So nowadays, people complaining about decentralization, complaining about anonymity, I think it doesn't make much sense anymore. because see, why are most people entering this cryptocurrency market? The answer is simple: they want to make profits. They don't want to obtain anonymity, they don't want something decentralized, but they do want to make profits

A few years ago, when people wanted to invest in cryptocurrencies, they analyzed whether the project was decentralized or not and whether it was anonymous or not. when they knew it was anonymous at least, then they ran to invest because they thought it would be the trend because it symbolized victory over governments, but nowadays with governments interfering in this market, people even stay away from anonymous currency, they prefer to invest in coins. Memes that are centralized are mostly scams, but because they will make a profit it's okay for them. By this I mean that today the market is no longer made up of people who love certain projects, who love certain purposes such as decentralization and anonymity, today the market is more commercial, in which people enter with the sole objective: to profit and abandon the altcoin and look for another to make a profit. and because of this, the creators of new altcoins will create alts with the purpose of attracting investors, they will not create decentralization or anonymity projects, they have created something that is only profitable

[Alpha Marine]

As long as a coin has an entity that owns it and that, in my opinion, that coin is not decentralised. For most altcoins, the creators of the coin are known, it's either owned by a company or a group of people and since something can be traced back to a central body, that thing is not decentralised however you look at it. With bitcoin, it can be traced back to nobody in particular. Yes, we all know it was created by Satoshi, but who is Satoshi? No one knows. There have been various theories and speculations, some even believe it's the CIA. This can be achieved because Bitcoin was built in a way that whoever created it is not making money directly from it, unlike most altcoins.

Monero is the closest coin to Bitcoin when we talk about animosity and decentralisation. The rest of the coins are just coins made by a centralised body and claim to be decentralised. Most aren't fully decentralised. How would they make money and rug pull if the coins were fully decentralised?

[BALIK]

You just nailed it. I saw your comment after posting this, and you obviously understand what I'm driving at. I think the concept of decentralization is largely absent in most new projects at the managerial and operational levels. That's why, beyond Bitcoin and Monero, I hardly take most so-called blockchain projects seriously.

Between decentralization and profit, I believe most people will choose profit over concerns about privacy, anonymity...What is the use of remaining anonymous or private when we have no money? So, you don't need to be disappointed with today's altcoins as they no longer retain the decentralized nature that bitcoin introduced as it is not something that is top of mind for everyone.
But luckily we still have bitcoin and it still retains its decentralized nature so if you like and care a lot about decentralization then you can stick with bitcoin and don't bother with altcoins. As long as bitcoin exists, the concept of decentralization will never go away.

[davis196]

Bitcoin, the first blockchain project, was built based on the concept of decentralization. Have you noticed that nearly every other project has team members that know one another? Even Ethereum, which claims to be decentralized, may have the email addresses of all its validators in one place. It very much seems that decentralization is no longer or has never been the vision of crypto projects since the days of Bitcoin. Why would a so-called blockchain product end up being linked to, say, a centralized exchange? Why are we no longer seeing qualitative, decentralized projects with anonymous teams? Even the Tornado Cash founders won't be in trouble today IF THEY WORKED ANONYMOUSLY AND FOCUSED ON DECENTRALIZATION. What seems obvious is that most blockchain products these days have their focus on making money and conforming to regulations, not giving people freedom from government control. That's why you see KYC everywhere.

1.So you are suggesting that the early Bitcoin developers shouldn't have known each other? Every project has a team of developers. It doesn't matter if the project is centralized or decentralized.
2.The centralized crypto exchanges are just platforms for trading. They have nothing to do with the blockchain. Decentralized exchanges are a thing, why are you still whining about centralized exchanges?
3.Decentralization doesn't mean 100% privacy. The Tornado Cash founders probably made some mistakes with their OPSEC, which revealed their identities.
If you don't want to deal with KYC, just check out all the non-KYC crypto services on notkyc.me(if I remember the domain correctly).