Bitcoin in the next decade

[melinoe]

It's an interesting discussion.

Bitcoin developers are getting help from centralized institutions until now and we haven't see where Bitcoin developers launch something that likely to support centralization. For now it's still safe, but we wouldn't know what will happen in the future.

I was hoping Bitcoin developers should run their own mining farm, so they can make money from their mining, not just relying on donation.

As long as BTC stays with its core values - it's going to be okay, and it doesn't seem it would change in the near future, only time will tell.

BTC is that ideal that shouldn't be broken no matter what.

[Franctoshi]

It would be appreciated if your views are given without being influenced by others considered reputable
I want to understand what people individually feel about this. Thank you.

Okay you can take it as a pessimistic POV but ever since the interest by government and institutions I feel we are losing on decentralization and privacy.
Don't get me wrong, I love to see Bitcoin price rising and adoptions but it's like the reason is rising is flawed. People joining for sometime now are only in it for the potential price increase and care nothing about a decentralized system.

It's subtle but it's happening, checked X during the exch shutdown and I saw many branding people that push for privacy as scammers. They were the majority.

We thought with all this news and mainstream many could learn about Bitcoin but no they barely know a thing.
We are compromising and giving excuse that it wouldn't get worse like the rise of KYC compliant exchanges or ETF approvals. But compromise is the first step before full acceptance.

Humans are political animals as they say, as long as there are group of people there must be politics. I'm sure this isn't different in the developers community.

Would government fold their hands and not try to make devs push a protocol that would favour them? I doubt, I understand we have miners and full nodes for checks and the open source process and peer review make covert protocol changes difficult. But we can't deny that Dev still have some influence (I used them as example since they are smaller in numbers).

I know we survived without government support and can survive without it but What are your thoughts on the direction we heading?

It's no doubt that the growing interest from the government and some institutional investors is gradually changing the narratives as regards to what purpose that Bitcoin were initially created for which is true decentralization.
With the increasing interest from the government to acquire Bitcoin any changes to the protocol to try to favour certain interest will definitely put Bitcoin security at risk as this will tend to compromise decentralization.

[nemesis_incarnate]

It would be appreciated if your views are given without being influenced by others considered reputable
I want to understand what people individually feel about this. Thank you.

Okay you can take it as a pessimistic POV but ever since the interest by government and institutions I feel we are losing on decentralization and privacy.
Don't get me wrong, I love to see Bitcoin price rising and adoptions but it's like the reason is rising is flawed. People joining for sometime now are only in it for the potential price increase and care nothing about a decentralized system.

It's subtle but it's happening, checked X during the exch shutdown and I saw many branding people that push for privacy as scammers. They were the majority.

We thought with all this news and mainstream many could learn about Bitcoin but no they barely know a thing.
We are compromising and giving excuse that it wouldn't get worse like the rise of KYC compliant exchanges or ETF approvals. But compromise is the first step before full acceptance.

Humans are political animals as they say, as long as there are group of people there must be politics. I'm sure this isn't different in the developers community.

Would government fold their hands and not try to make devs push a protocol that would favour them? I doubt, I understand we have miners and full nodes for checks and the open source process and peer review make covert protocol changes difficult. But we can't deny that Dev still have some influence (I used them as example since they are smaller in numbers).

I know we survived without government support and can survive without it but What are your thoughts on the direction we heading?

It's no doubt that the growing interest from the government and some institutional investors is gradually changing the narratives as regards to what purpose that Bitcoin were initially created for which is true decentralization.
With the increasing interest from the government to acquire Bitcoin any changes to the protocol to try to favour certain interest will definitely put Bitcoin security at risk as this will tend to compromise decentralization.

As long as BTC's core values are intact and individual hodlers got more than said entities - all is going to be good.

[katanic97]

You have already stated the facts very clearly, based imao now adoption has been dominated by institutions and we can't prevent it anyway. After Bitcoin continues to attract global financial attention everything becomes a target both in terms of business and for political purposes. Back to the developers whether they will be lenient with government regulations as experienced by Tornado Cash developers or continue to maintain censorship resistance.

Oh one more thing to know, like it or not, the fact is that we are currently on our last defense.

The problem is that, in the race for profit, what bitcoin once stood for decentralization and censorship resistance is slowly disappearing.Whether someone likes it or not, all we have left is to educate ourselves well, store our funds independently, and support tools that protect privacy, because if we don’t have that, bitcoin will no longer be an alternative to the system, but a complete part of it.

[SUPERSAIAN]

I am not very optimistic about privacy, it is not good for governments to control and manipulate some variables. In other words, governments should not impose any restrictions on Bitcoin. Although I am not sure if these restrictions will decrease or increase in the coming years, they are restricted enough for now.

Bitcoin is still the best, most transparent and decentralized payment system compared to other payment systems, and in my opinion, it will always remain so. Compared to other payment systems, decentralization on Bitcoin is also slowly decreasing. Nevertheless, improvements in hashrate distribution and the increase in users' tendency to use their own wallets are positive signs supporting decentralization.

[pawel7777]

(...)
I was hoping Bitcoin developers should run their own mining farm, so they can make money from their mining, not just relying on donation.

It's best if they don't. I'd rather see Bitcoin influence groups (miners, devs, node operators) split, to force all groups to work together to seek consensus on any proposed changes than to have one, small group control over the network. Also, a small group could be easily co-opted by any three-letter agency.

On the topic, I understand OP's concerns.
It really feels like the absolute vast majority of bitcoiners are only interested in price movements, and we hardly see any discussions on development, new ideas/proposals etc.
I remember that years ago almost every forum member would have some opinion on what Bitcoin's road map should be, i.e. during the so-called block size war. Nowadays, hardly anyone can name more than 3 active developers (if any).
Sadly, I'm no better. I haven't been following recent developments too closely. I hear that there's some ongoing drama about Bitcoin Core devs censoring people and implementing contentious changes, and that some prominent community members, i.e. Matthew Kratter started advocating for alternative Bitcoin clients, but I'm not really in the loop on that. If anyone could give me (and others) a quick rundown on the issue, or post a link to a relevant thread, that would be great.

[red4slash]

Although it feels bad but indeed this is a fact that exists today where sometimes we are too dependent on news about politicians or even news of a country adopting bitcoin even though I am also happy with the price which is quite soaring but it cannot be denied that there is a concern that occurs in it because if there are some things that are not expected then we are like waiting for the storm to come.

Although it cannot be denied that this will be an assumption that we will not be able to see the truth because only time will determine but slowly we seem to be losing decentralization even though it is in quotes. Because we still have the decentralization but the changes that occur seem to change the decentralization that we believed before.

But even so I still hope that everything will remain as expected because after all bitcoin will continue to be considered as something very good and worth defending.

[melinoe]

Although it feels bad but indeed this is a fact that exists today where sometimes we are too dependent on news about politicians or even news of a country adopting bitcoin even though I am also happy with the price which is quite soaring but it cannot be denied that there is a concern that occurs in it because if there are some things that are not expected then we are like waiting for the storm to come.

Although it cannot be denied that this will be an assumption that we will not be able to see the truth because only time will determine but slowly we seem to be losing decentralization even though it is in quotes. Because we still have the decentralization but the changes that occur seem to change the decentralization that we believed before.

But even so I still hope that everything will remain as expected because after all bitcoin will continue to be considered as something very good and worth defending.

News affect everything only in the short run.

And I don't think BTC will push forward at all if it loses its decentralization little by little. It wouldn't be BTC then.

[Ishicryptic]

The driving force for Bitcoin adoption presently is that it's a store of value not because you can use it for peer to peer transactions meaning that decentralization is being underscored by the drive to make profits. Countries, States, cities and communities that are holding it as reserve assets are all for profit purposes not really because they care that it is a decentralized digital currency. In the next decade I see Bitcoin gaining more reputation as a store of value because it will be more profitable, being used more for international trades and payments for convenience not because it is decentralized. Holding for privacy and freedom will be by personal choice.

[suzanne5223]

I am happy to see someone raising this issue because I once talked about it in some of my posts, but the user of the forum seems to be careless, and I count that most people only care about the benefits of Bitcoin, while they don't care about the decentralization and privacy.

What you stated in the OP are major reasons why I never celebrate much the adoption of Bitcoin done by the institution, major investment organizations (like BlackRock, etc), and the government. After all, these groups always like to force control of things in the market they participate.

About the devs, I believe most of them care about the decentralization and privacy of Bitcoin based on what happened years ago when there was a debate over the BTC fork, which led to a split among devs, and when people like Vers went to cause chaos. But, i don't know if their enthusiasm for BTC decentralization and privacy will change if the government puts them in a condition that's unbearable for them.

I believe the major problem we have about decentralization and privacy now is with every Bitcoin holder and enthusiasts who dont priortize privacy with the inclusion of those who are switching from self-custodial holding to custodial holding, and BTC ETF investment which main concept is to treat Bitcoin like JPEG.

No matter how government try to influence the market with their position, the core definition of bitcoin and her decentralization cannot be tarnished. [snip]

Yes, but the decentralization can be tarnished if individual holders who are moving to BTC ETF holdings don't stop. This is why we need every individual more than ever to prioritize self-custodial and stay away from ETF investments and things that will make it hard to operate a node.

[melinoe]

The driving force for Bitcoin adoption presently is that it's a store of value not because you can use it for peer to peer transactions meaning that decentralization is being underscored by the drive to make profits. Countries, States, cities and communities that are holding it as reserve assets are all for profit purposes not really because they care that it is a decentralized digital currency. In the next decade I see Bitcoin gaining more reputation as a store of value because it will be more profitable, being used more for international trades and payments for convenience not because it is decentralized. Holding for privacy and freedom will be by personal choice.

I hope someday this paradigm would shift toward what BTC was really built up for - sure, hodling it and appreciating it like that is good too, but it's not the last step of the adoption..

[Abiky]

Okay you can take it as a pessimistic POV but ever since the interest by government and institutions I feel we are losing on decentralization and privacy.
Don't get me wrong, I love to see Bitcoin price rising and adoptions but it's like the reason is rising is flawed. People joining for sometime now are only in it for the potential price increase and care nothing about a decentralized system.

It's subtle but it's happening, checked X during the exch shutdown and I saw many branding people that push for privacy as scammers. They were the majority.

We thought with all this news and mainstream many could learn about Bitcoin but no they barely know a thing.
We are compromising and giving excuse that it wouldn't get worse like the rise of KYC compliant exchanges or ETF approvals. But compromise is the first step before full acceptance.

Humans are political animals as they say, as long as there are group of people there must be politics. I'm sure this isn't different in the developers community.

Would government fold their hands and not try to make devs push a protocol that would favour them? I doubt, I understand we have miners and full nodes for checks and the open source process and peer review make covert protocol changes difficult. But we can't deny that Dev still have some influence (I used them as example since they are smaller in numbers).


I know we survived without government support and can survive without it but What are your thoughts on the direction we heading?

Exactly. However, most people aren't seeing the big picture. They're blinded by greed, as BTC continues go up in price. While government and institutional support helps increase demand for the cryptocurrency (which leads to higher prices in the long run), it will only make Bitcoin more centralized. Or at least, concentrate most of the circulating supply in the hands of a few. Fortunately, network nodes and miners are out of big institutional investment companies' hands. At least for now. Let's hope they don't gain control of most of the network hashrate and nodes in the long run. Else, Bitcoin would be doomed.

Considering how institutionalization poses a huge threat towards decentralization, I'd say our only option would be to move to Monero for complete peace of mind. Litecoin is also a coin to consider. This is for the paranoid, of course. But if you're like the average person who doesn't give a damn about decentralization + censorship-resistance, using BTC or any of the centralized "shitcoins" on the market will do just fine. Many things can happen within a decade from now. So we better be prepared for the worse.

[death69]

It’s strange. People cheer institutional money, like the very entities Bitcoin was meant to route around have become the final validators of its legitimacy. There’s comfort in that. There’s also a trap. You already see it: privacy advocates treated like malcontents, cypherpunk principles reduced to marketing copy, self-custody slowly becoming optional, then weird, then suspect.

And the protocol? Yes, open. Yes, peer reviewed. But people forget that any system, if left to inertia, trends toward convenience, not resilience. Developers are human. They want stability, recognition, sometimes safety. Governments will push for tweaks, sometimes quietly. Sometimes not. It won’t be a 51% attack. It’ll be a thousand small, reasonable proposals, each “pragmatic”, each justifiable, until you wake up and the edge is gone.

Can it be stopped? Maybe. But only if enough people get uncomfortable enough to defend the old ideas. The miners, the node runners, the devs who remember why they started. These are the antibodies, but they’re not immune. Distraction is a bigger threat than coercion.

I don’t think Bitcoin dies. But I do think it risks being neutered. Decentralization isn’t a checkbox. It’s a struggle. Sometimes you win by holding ground, sometimes by refusing the easy road. Maybe the real decentralization isn’t in the code anymore, but in the mindset. Will people even want it when comfort is on sale?

[coolcoinz]

As long as BTC stays with its core values - it's going to be okay, and it doesn't seem it would change in the near future, only time will tell.

BTC is that ideal that shouldn't be broken no matter what.

Bitcoin itself cannot do anything. Its fate is decided by whoever owns it.

Imagine that in 20 years we have a situation where almost all bitcoin is mined out, 25% of the supply is lost permanently and 10m is in the hands of large holders like nation states, blackrock, and other ETF issuers. That leaves only 5million BTC in the hands of normal holders and all the other owners will be able to just meet up the way the WEF meets. They'll decide the fate of bitcoin over dinner.

IMO the future of bitcoin is that it will be controlled. They will block transactions they don't like. It's already being discussed that coins stolen by North Korea should be tainted. Eventually they will be blocking and tainting left and right once they own a million each.

[Jegileman]

I know we survived without government support and can survive without it but What are your thoughts on the direction we heading?

The direction we are heading where the bitcoin market is really being influenced by the government is not what we hoped for even when government began to show interest in bitcoin, we only wanted them to make it a legal entity so that many can partake and be part of this journey of decentralization. But little did we know that Bitcoin market is going to face a lot of pressure from the government indirectly as they’ve been directly involved in bitcoin through their choice of words and action towards what bitcoin has become.

We can’t even have a market performing on its own for a complete one month without being affected by the political news originating from the government, we are not asking for this in the first instance. Bitcoin can still survive even with their full interest in it, we may just be facing some setbacks from time to time but we will definitely achieve what its main here was for in the end.

[kryptqnick]

Humans are political animals as they say, as long as there are group of people there must be politics.

I majored in philosophy, and as the phrase about human being a political 'animal' comes from Aristotle, I'd like to make a note here. It's not about 'politics' being everywhere there's a group of people (at least, that's not how I interpret it). Humans are social, they want to communicate and do things together with others, to take part in the lives of their communities.

I do agree that most probably don't care about what is behind Bitcoin, they're here for profit. And with this expansion of Bitcoin investors, Bitcoin is becoming less of a challenge to the traditional financial system and more a part of it.

But we, as a Bitcointalk community, are also 'political animals', and through our discussions here we can help each other make more informed decisions regarding Bitcoin.
For me, Bitcoin is first and foremost a decentralized, truly independent currency. I support it on ideological grounds, and while I can't say the price isn't important (because the price reflects the purchasing power), I'd want to stick around for as long as I can, no matter the price.

[nemesis_incarnate]

Bitcoin itself cannot do anything. Its fate is decided by whoever owns it.

Imagine that in 20 years we have a situation where almost all bitcoin is mined out, 25% of the supply is lost permanently and 10m is in the hands of large holders like nation states, blackrock, and other ETF issuers. That leaves only 5million BTC in the hands of normal holders and all the other owners will be able to just meet up the way the WEF meets. They'll decide the fate of bitcoin over dinner.

IMO the future of bitcoin is that it will be controlled. They will block transactions they don't like. It's already being discussed that coins stolen by North Korea should be tainted. Eventually they will be blocking and tainting left and right once they own a million each.

Sounds bad and dystopian, but yeah, it's a possibility due to being open to everybody - big and small.

I just hope there will be some loophole that would check out such a possibility out, but sadly, for now, it looks grim..

[Abiky]

Bitcoin itself cannot do anything. Its fate is decided by whoever owns it.

Imagine that in 20 years we have a situation where almost all bitcoin is mined out, 25% of the supply is lost permanently and 10m is in the hands of large holders like nation states, blackrock, and other ETF issuers. That leaves only 5million BTC in the hands of normal holders and all the other owners will be able to just meet up the way the WEF meets. They'll decide the fate of bitcoin over dinner.

IMO the future of bitcoin is that it will be controlled. They will block transactions they don't like. It's already being discussed that coins stolen by North Korea should be tainted. Eventually they will be blocking and tainting left and right once they own a million each.

Supply alone doesn't determine control on the Bitcoin blockchain. Entities like BlackRock and Strategy might buy all of the BTC, but the final decision lies in miners' and nodes' hands. Especially nodes, which are the ones that determine network consensus.

I don't envision centralized entities controlling Bitcoin, unless they also manage to run nodes and miners of their own. If that happens, it will be the end of BTC for good. 10 years (a decade) is a long time in crypto land, so anything can happen.

It’s strange. People cheer institutional money, like the very entities Bitcoin was meant to route around have become the final validators of its legitimacy. There’s comfort in that. There’s also a trap. You already see it: privacy advocates treated like malcontents, cypherpunk principles reduced to marketing copy, self-custody slowly becoming optional, then weird, then suspect.

And the protocol? Yes, open. Yes, peer reviewed. But people forget that any system, if left to inertia, trends toward convenience, not resilience. Developers are human. They want stability, recognition, sometimes safety. Governments will push for tweaks, sometimes quietly. Sometimes not. It won’t be a 51% attack. It’ll be a thousand small, reasonable proposals, each “pragmatic”, each justifiable, until you wake up and the edge is gone.

Can it be stopped? Maybe. But only if enough people get uncomfortable enough to defend the old ideas. The miners, the node runners, the devs who remember why they started. These are the antibodies, but they’re not immune. Distraction is a bigger threat than coercion.

I don’t think Bitcoin dies. But I do think it risks being neutered. Decentralization isn’t a checkbox. It’s a struggle. Sometimes you win by holding ground, sometimes by refusing the easy road. Maybe the real decentralization isn’t in the code anymore, but in the mindset. Will people even want it when comfort is on sale?

Well said. The path towards "institutionalization" of Bitcoin, is nothing more than a plan by governments and "Wall Street" to centralize Bitcoin. Developers, miners, and node operators must stand strong by resisting such entities. I sure hope developers aren't "bribed" by "Wall Street", or it will be the end of Bitcoin for good. Luckily for us, there's always a "Plan B". Thanks to Bitcoin's open source code, it's easy enough to "fork away" into a new chain. Maybe the community will fork Bitcoin and continue its legacy? One can only hope.

Most people want to make money, so they wouldn't give a damn if BTC turns centralized in the future. As long as market prices keep going up, nothing else matters. At least, good gems like Litecoin and Monero aren't "institutionalized". And I hope it stays that way forever.

[betswift]

Well said. The path towards "institutionalization" of Bitcoin, is nothing more than a plan by governments and "Wall Street" to centralize Bitcoin. Developers, miners, and node operators must stand strong by resisting such entities. I sure hope developers aren't "bribed" by "Wall Street", or it will be the end of Bitcoin for good. Luckily for us, there's always a "Plan B". Thanks to Bitcoin's open source code, it's easy enough to "fork away" into a new chain. Maybe the community will fork Bitcoin and continue its legacy? One can only hope.

Most people want to make money, so they wouldn't give a damn if BTC turns centralized in the future. As long as market prices keep going up, nothing else matters. At least, good gems like Litecoin and Monero aren't "institutionalized". And I hope it stays that way forever.

If it happens, not in our lifetimes for sure

[Floxynice]

Okay you can take it as a pessimistic POV but ever since the interest by government and institutions I feel we are losing on decentralization and privacy.

Even before the government began to show interest in Bitcoin, I had already felt within me that decentralization was gradually fading away. That is the reason I created this post: Why use decentralized Bitcoin in a centralized way?. Many people gave reasons why they are still using Bitcoin in a centralized way, one of which is that people are still stuck with the traditional financial system. They don't care much about privacy; they just want to get returns from their investments.

Saying the government's interest will likely cause decentralization and privacy to fade away is like looking for an excuse to justify what we are already guilty of. In years to come, we should expect more regulations from the government through the exchanges, and we will still gladly comply because, truly, only very few really care about decentralization.