Has The Decentralization Concept Failed?

[Sasoute]

hello

[BlackHatCoiner]

But what earthly benefit does that technical thing bring to consumers?

I think we're viewing this from an entirely different angle, and it's your persistence with the word "consumers" that sets this clear. I don't view this as a "product", in the same way that I don't view the Internet (the protocol) as a product.

You're seeing this as, yet, another financial service or instrument. I see it as the cornerstone of a better monetary system, that can fix what's broken money today.

[cryptosize]

But what earthly benefit does that technical thing bring to consumers?

I think we're viewing this from an entirely different angle, and it's your persistence with the word "consumers" that sets this clear. I don't view this as a "product", in the same way that I don't view the Internet (the protocol) as a product.

You're seeing this as, yet, another financial service or instrument. I see it as the cornerstone of a better monetary system, that can fix what's broken money today.

Altcoin shillers will always view it that way... consumers, corporations, yadda yadda.

Zero cypherpunk mentality. The mentality that brought us BSD sockets (the exact same code exists in Windows) and TCP/IP.

[legiteum]

But what earthly benefit does that technical thing bring to consumers?

I think we're viewing this from an entirely different angle, and it's your persistence with the word "consumers" that sets this clear. I don't view this as a "product", in the same way that I don't view the Internet (the protocol) as a product.

You're seeing this as, yet, another financial service or instrument. I see it as the cornerstone of a better monetary system, that can fix what's broken money today.

I'm trying attach these abstract terms you are using to actual benefits to human beings so we can actually figure out what our respective terms actually mean.

I'll try a different angle then: you say blockchain specifically and uniquely enables a "better monetary system". What is "better" about it? In what way does it help people? What would somebody want a "better monetary system" as opposed to the "bad" one we presumably have now?

[cryptosize]

Maybe hyperinflation will teach people a lesson about why they need BTC:

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1815451522748010786

Oh noez, Musk is an alt-right incel misogynist fascist racist Nazi Trump supporter, never mind!

[BlackHatCoiner]

What is "better" about it?

I have already told you. It cannot be corrupted, as opposed to every national currency. You hold absolutely no sway in a fiat currency. It's beyond your control. And it's actively used as a tool to tax you.

Every place on Earth is currently experiencing inflation because of bad monetary policies; because those in charge cannot be trusted to manage the economy responsibly. Why should the people be forced to put trust on fallible humans, when a protocol can do this job far more efficiently, effectively and transparently?

[Cookdata]

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.

I really wish full decentralization is achievable but on a full scale, that's what I'm unsure about. All money revolves around government and as long as they can see it, they will try as much as possible to regulate it.  You don't have to compare Bitcoin and some of this altcoins like Ethereum, it was because of such things Satoshi was anonymous till date and never revealed his identity to the world otherwise Bitcoin will not be exempted from this scrutiny.

No matter how a coin try to run decentralization, anonymous and other concepts of blockchain, if there identify is know by the government, they will impose their own rules on them if they really want to see it around else if hey refused to accept, it will only cost them more problems in the future. They just have to succumbed to the policy than watch their project take down.

True decentralization comes from been fully anonymous from the internet.

[legiteum]

What is "better" about it?

I have already told you. It cannot be corrupted, as opposed to every national currency. You hold absolutely no sway in a fiat currency. It's beyond your control. And it's actively used as a tool to tax you.

Okay, but all kinds of investments "can't be corrupted", and it doesn't require the blockchain architecture to put a cap on units minted.

Every place on Earth is currently experiencing inflation because of bad monetary policies; because those in charge cannot be trusted to manage the economy responsibly. Why should the people be forced to put trust on fallible humans, when a protocol can do this job far more efficiently, effectively and transparently?

Well, Bitcoin is a network that is run by... humans. More than 51% of the Bitcoin hashrate is controlled by just two companies. And any software system could conceivably be hacked, etc. etc. I agree that it's unlikely that these things will happen with Bitcoin, given everything we know about it's current governance, but it's not technically correct to say it "can't be corrupted" in some abstract way.

Regardless, again, let's try to get this down to benefits to the user, shall we? You seem to imply that sovereign currencies can be, and often are, inflated based on the actions of governments, and because of that, Bitcoin is a better investment.

While Bitcoin has recently been on a "bull run", it has also lost drastic percentages of its value in the past as well. The FTX fiasco caused Bitcoin to drop by 60%. One can imagine other market movements to move it up and down in value by similar portions, and with Bitcoin becoming a "political football", acts of the US Congress could, for instance, make it gain or lose very giant portions of its value as well.

So in fact, Bitcoin is more susceptible to governments and politics and sovereign currencies are.

Indeed, it's rather strange to imply that the extremely volatile asset that is Bitcoin is... safer than plain US dollars. While the US Dollar as seen inflation, the overall inflation rate of the US dollar has been something like 2% over the last 40 years. That's pretty darn stable--and you would be hard pressed to find any other investment that is more stable than that. Even things like gold can be hyped up by the marketplace, only to collapse when the bubble pops.

So if the problem you are trying to solve is a stable long-term investment:

1. Lots of things can provide that, at least in theory, including non-blockchain-based digital currencies and other assets.

2. Bitcoin has no track record of being that, and in fact has the opposite track record necessary to prove such a thing.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Well, Bitcoin is a network that is run by... humans.

You didn't read the Github link I posted, did you?

So in fact, Bitcoin is more susceptible to governments and politics and sovereign currencies are.

Bitcoin is just worth $1T. It's obvious that with this valuation, it's really easy to manipulate the price, at least comparably to the global reserve currency, which is USD, currently. And against all odds, it's still have been a shrewd investment. Overall, it's been rising by more than 150% every year, on average, in the last few years.

While the US Dollar as seen inflation, the overall inflation rate of the US dollar has been something like 2% over the last 40 years.

Here's the data that show M2 money supply of FRED: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WM2NS. The M2 money supply increased from about $15.4 trillion in February 2020 to about $19.5 trillion by February 2021. That's more than 26% increase of the money supply in a year. And, by February 2022, another $2 trillion were printed. That's around 40% increase in money supply within just two years.

I'm OK with Bitcoin, thanks.

[$weetne$$]

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.

Bitcoin decentralized concept has not failed and Bitcoin is still using proof of work because that is the only way we can stay decentralized. When new project start using proof of stakes, they are losing their decentralization but I think most new projects are not decentralized but only using that terms because it will make them to get accepted very quick in the industry as we love decentralization. New project are after making money and getting popular very fast so they will do anything that can give them fame and acceptance in the market. A decentralized project can have a known founder but he will not be involved in the project too much because not everyone can vanish just as satoshi did and will never be found. Decentralization should be in the project and not about the teams because they can be known yet not be involved actively.

[tottong]

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.

We will never be able to escape freedom if we live in a country that has rules and laws. When blockchains are not focused on making money, which is what they were created for, businesses are always talking about profits and there is no reason for them to expect to lose.
These regulations are important to them because blockchain development may require funds and they want to ensure they don't get into trouble from government regulations.
There are still many people who do not do KYC and still maintain anonymity even though most of us may do that but do not use exchanges that require KYC are also still available.

Don't worry because you are free to choose and decide whether to be anonymous or not, even though it is difficult to see it that way because we live in a country where the law is the highest position.

[legiteum]

So in fact, Bitcoin is more susceptible to governments and politics and sovereign currencies are.

Bitcoin is just worth $1T. It's obvious that with this valuation, it's really easy to manipulate the price, at least comparably to the global reserve currency, which is USD, currently. And against all odds, it's still have been a shrewd investment. Overall, it's been rising by more than 150% every year, on average, in the last few years.

Sure, but it's more susceptible to manipulation by the US government than the US dollar is. But above you said that a primary benefit (which I would still say is not unique to either Bitcoin nor blockchain, but that's another subject) is it's stability as compared to sovereign currencies like the US dollar. But Bitcoin has proven the very opposite to that.

While the US Dollar as seen inflation, the overall inflation rate of the US dollar has been something like 2% over the last 40 years.

Here's the data that show M2 money supply of FRED: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WM2NS. The M2 money supply increased from about $15.4 trillion in February 2020 to about $19.5 trillion by February 2021. That's more than 26% increase of the money supply in a year. And, by February 2022, another $2 trillion were printed. That's around 40% increase in money supply within just two years.

I'm OK with Bitcoin, thanks.

So you are predicting the US dollar falling by 40%? When do you predict this will happen? And if it doesn't happen, will you re-examine your understanding of how macroeconomics works?

And if the wrong candidate gets elected in November and Bitcoin drops in half, are you still going to think Bitcoin is better? And are you still going to maintain that the US Dollar is manipulated by politics, but Bitcoin is... not?

For that matter, are you actually telling me that you personally have your entire net worth invested in Bitcoin? Are you sure that's wise?

[BlackHatCoiner]

Sure, but it's more susceptible to manipulation by the US government than the US dollar is. But above you said that a primary benefit (which I would still say is not unique to either Bitcoin nor blockchain, but that's another subject) is it's stability as compared to sovereign currencies like the US dollar.

Nowhere did I mention that it's "stable". I said that it cannot be corrupted. It cannot be arbitrarily inflated. Monetary policy is set in stone in 2009, and we know precisely what the inflation rate will be in every year into the future.

So you are predicting the US dollar falling by 40%? When do you predict this will happen? And if it doesn't happen, will you re-examine your understanding of how macroeconomics works?

You have completely missed my point. I provided an example where the US dollar devalued by 40% in a short period, to emphasize why I would never trust it for saving. And if you're wondering, then yes, I do expect it to devalue even more.

And if the wrong candidate gets elected in November and Bitcoin drops in half, are you still going to think Bitcoin is better?

If the "wrong candidate" (lol) gets elected, and Bitcoin drops by half, then I'll buy cheap Bitcoin, because I cannot imagine a scenario where Bitcoin will be declining and the USD rising over the long term.


As I said, we're viewing it from an entirely different angle. I don't think that it's immune to manipulation, I just think it will be the future of money. It's partly speculating and partly a plausible replacement for broken money with incorruptible, honest and pure money. A matter of life and death.

[legiteum]

Sure, but it's more susceptible to manipulation by the US government than the US dollar is. But above you said that a primary benefit (which I would still say is not unique to either Bitcoin nor blockchain, but that's another subject) is it's stability as compared to sovereign currencies like the US dollar.

Nowhere did I mention that it's "stable". I said that it cannot be corrupted. It cannot be arbitrarily inflated. Monetary policy is set in stone in 2009, and we know precisely what the inflation rate will be in every year into the future.

Got it. But what value does this trait actually give somebody? Bitcoin has a finite supply (again, like a zillion other assets). But the price fluctuates wildly. You say it is "uncorruptible", but what earthly value is there to an asset that is "uncorruptible"?

In terms of value to actual human beings, any asset's value stems from it's... value. As in, what you can trade the asset for. In other words, can you buy dinner with it, or not?You trade that asset for Dollars, or Euros, or Toyota Corollas, or whatever, and you improve your life with the thing you trade for.

Bitcoin's value to human beings can be manipulated by governments--far more easily than a government's sovereign currency, for instance.

US dollars can be (and are) manipulated by politics as well, but the US dollar's track record for value stability has been far better than Bitcoin's.

So you are predicting the US dollar falling by 40%? When do you predict this will happen? And if it doesn't happen, will you re-examine your understanding of how macroeconomics works?

You have completely missed my point. I provided an example where the US dollar devalued by 40% in a short period, to emphasize why I would never trust it for saving. And if you're wondering, then yes, I do expect it to devalue even more.

What do you mean by "devalued"? You listed some statistics about certain currency supplies and so forth, but the actual reality of prices is not connected to that at all. In other words, prices have not gone up, on a dollar basis, by 40% in the last two years. Not even close. Two years ago the price of a Toyota Corolla was only marginally less than it is now. That's true for all kinds of other assets. Overall inflation in the last two years hasn't even been 10%.

Look, I am not here to say that Bitcoin won't go up, or that it's not a good investment--it very well may go up in price. But so might any asset. Trump currency might go through the roof someday and appreciate by 100,000%. Or it may never be worth anything.

But you seem to be ascribing some mystic powers to Bitcoin in particular that it just doesn't have.

As I said, we're viewing it from an entirely different angle. I don't think that it's immune to manipulation, I just think it will be the future of money. It's partly speculating and partly a plausible replacement for broken money with incorruptible, honest and pure money. A matter of life and death.

So the future of money is a currency that can shift in value by 10% in one day?

The future of money is paying for something at the mall, and then waiting 30 minutes for the transaction to complete?

The future of money is a currency that can cost 30 dollars per transaction?

Bitcoin surely has a future as a meme investment, and meme investments are great (I know, I'm in the meme investment business ). But Satoshi absolutely never envisioned it being the "future of money"--the blockchain architecture makes that impossible, for starters--and for me, I think that future is actually much more complicated*.


(* I'm working on a new Medium article on this very topic--partially informed by our interesting discussions here!--and hope to have that published soon).

[BlackHatCoiner]

I appreciate that you keep things civil, but I am foreseeing that this conversation will not lead anywhere, as we disagree on fundamental levels.

I have clarified what's valuable about Bitcoin. It's exhausting repeating it over and over again. You simply don't agree with my definition of value. That's completely respectable, and we can end it right here. In the end, the free market defines the true value. However, I cannot leave some of your absurdness unchallenged.

What do you mean by "devalued"? You listed some statistics about certain currency supplies and so forth, but the actual reality of prices is not connected to that at all. In other words, prices have not gone up, on a dollar basis, by 40% in the last two years. Not even close.

Here's the U.S. National Home Price index: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/csushpinsa. It rose by ~42% between 2020 and 2022, and it's at an all time high right now.
Here's the 30-Year Fixed Rate Mortgage Average in the United States: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MORTGAGE30US. When COVID started, it was around 3. Now, it's 6.77, that's 125% increase.

Groceries, gas, energy, education and other services increased in price as well, but not only due to bad monetary policies (e.g., due to supply chain disruptions). I mean, honestly, where do you live? In every place on the Earth, since this money printing, prices have gone up significantly.

You know what isn't rising at the same pace? Wages.

[Abu-Naim]

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.

BTC is still not supposed to be compared with any altcoin despite their claims of benign decentralized because all altcoins have developers and team managing the projects and these team members are well known by their investors which contradicts the concept of decentralization.

KYC is only required in centralized system and exchanges so that they can have records of their customers and investors, but Bitcoin is completely decentralized, and if you invest in your personal wallets, you will know that it is completely decentralized.

[cryptosize]

I appreciate that you keep things civil, but I am foreseeing that this conversation will not lead anywhere, as we disagree on fundamental levels.

I have clarified what's valuable about Bitcoin. It's exhausting repeating it over and over again. You simply don't agree with my definition of value. That's completely respectable, and we can end it right here. In the end, the free market defines the true value. However, I cannot leave some of your absurdness unchallenged.

What do you mean by "devalued"? You listed some statistics about certain currency supplies and so forth, but the actual reality of prices is not connected to that at all. In other words, prices have not gone up, on a dollar basis, by 40% in the last two years. Not even close.

Here's the U.S. National Home Price index: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/csushpinsa. It rose by ~42% between 2020 and 2022, and it's at an all time high right now.
Here's the 30-Year Fixed Rate Mortgage Average in the United States: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MORTGAGE30US. When COVID started, it was around 3. Now, it's 6.77, that's 125% increase.

Groceries, gas, energy, education and other services increased in price as well, but not only due to bad monetary policies (e.g., due to supply chain disruptions). I mean, honestly, where do you live? In every place on the Earth, since this money printing, prices have gone up significantly.

You know what isn't rising at the same pace? Wages.

You have to realize that some people here are heavily emotionally invested in USD due to 401k pension schemes.

Would you enjoy it if USD hyperinflated and your pension went... poof? I'm sure you wouldn't.

That's why they will defend the "almighty" dollar till its last breath. The exact same thing has happened in Ancient Rome.

The less heavily invested you are in the fiat Ponzi scheme, the less denial you have about the imminent collapse.

[kryptqnick]

Decentralization is a broad concept that applies to a lot of things. Whether the team is public or private is not a major decentralization component to me. Bitcoin isn't issued by a single authority; blockchain is decentralized. There is a certain level of decentralization of mining facilities, and decentralization in a sense of distribution of BTC between various holders. The fact that Satoshi is not leading the project and that we don't know who that is contributes to decentralization, but isn't decentralization per se. Likewise, if an altcoin project has a CEO and a public team, it doesn't mean that it's totally centralized because there is more to what decentralization means.

[legiteum]

I have clarified what's valuable about Bitcoin. It's exhausting repeating it over and over again. You simply don't agree with my definition of value. That's completely respectable, and we can end it right here. In the end, the free market defines the true value.

Yes, I guess that's it. I define value in the way... most people define value: a thing you can use to obtain what you want or need in an open market.

Obviously value can be completely subjective, as you point out, but that's not usually introduced into a discussion like this since the reason most people want an investment to go up in "value" is so they can... buy more stuff. People are concerned about the inflation of the US Dollar because their investment in Dollars goes down in value and they can't buy as much stuff (insofar as they invest in US Dollars). People look to other investments like Bitcoin or stocks because they can buy more stuff in the future. That's the way most people use the term, "value" in this context. Layered on top of this definition are concepts like "success", "loss", "gain", etc.

I'm only pointing this out because you might find yourself confusing other people with your very personal definition of "value", because it's not the way most people use that term.

[legiteum]

You have to realize that some people here are heavily emotionally invested in USD due to 401k pension schemes.

The exact opposite of what you said is true. 401k plans are investment portfolios that typically include a variety of investment instruments (including Bitcoin in the form of the ETF now days).

Most 401k plans don't include any US Dollars at all.

People use US Dollars as a measurement device, but that has no bearing on the actual value of their retirement savings.