If Bitcoin was centralized, would the price of BTC go down or up?

[Franctoshi]

I think there wouldn't have been no reason to create Bitcoin in the first place if Bitcoin were to be centralised, the idea came because people were tired of the old centralised system of money where the government controls all money.
Bitcoin wouldn't have got this attractive to people that Billionaires now invest in a lot of their money, and between self custody and traditional Banking saving system, people will prefer controlling or being in charge of their money, therefore the price wouldn't have gone this up because they will keep printing more Bitcoin and it wouldn't have been a deflationary asset

[Cookdata]

Alright, let me chip in something. With my small time and understanding of the market, an average investor that join the crypto market within 2020 to now doesn't care about the tech behind any coin, as king as it's making and printing profit, they will go down to any leanth to get that coin. Alt coins like Solana, doge and many altcoins are evidence that such people don't care about centralization, they care about the profit and early access they can get from the coin.

Most of the OGs respect Bitcoin because of what's it stand for, it's not just decentralize but censorship resistance, border less payment and many things you stand to gain that government can't do anything about. This is what true decentralization stand to protect. Some people will choose decentralization before value that comes with Bitcoin price, they don't care about the price or what's it trading, this is why Bitcoin outstand any coin you can ever think, most doesn't care about micro economics and all this grammers we are using to protect the Bitcoin price.

In absence of decentralization, people will buy Bitcoin if it's centralized, most of this alts are centralized, just 2 days ago Arbitrum froze 80k worth of Ethereum from Kelp Dao exploit that was sent to their bridege and they claimed to be decentralized but it took just 9 people in round table to make that decision, it's to centralized as hell. Have you checked its token price, the price remain the same because are buying and holding.

[Outhue]

If Bitcoin was centralised but still have the volatile part of it, I am sure that people won't mind to keep investing, since Ethereum changed from PoW to Pos people still never stopped investing on Ethereum, I thought that would be the end of that project but yet Ethereum still keeps it's position as the second best crypto.

How many people are even buying Bitcoin today because it's decentralised? I don't see people using Bitcoin because it's decentralised for any reasons, people have gotten used to this centralised world, they are used to been control by another, their government, it is not a surprise that people don't buy Bitcoin because of full control of their money, I mean some invest still prefers leaving their Bitcoin on exchanges, rather than using a non-custodial wallet.

[red4slash]

For now instead of discussing something that is not too important because it will never happen, I think it would be better for us to focus on our goals for bitcoin.

We don't need to wish for something that will never happen because bitcoin already has basic characteristics where decentralization has always been a hallmark of bitcoin.
Do not make ourselves dizzy with the thought that bitcoin can turn into centralization, especially regarding its price if centralization occurs because since the beginning bitcoin will never be centralized and will not be.

Satoshi has made decentralization a characteristic of bitcoin and it is absolutely unchangeable so there is no “if” for the impossible.

[legiteum]

For now instead of discussing something that is not too important because it will never happen, I think it would be better for us to focus on our goals for bitcoin.

We don't need to wish for something that will never happen because bitcoin already has basic characteristics where decentralization has always been a hallmark of bitcoin.

Do not make ourselves dizzy with the thought that bitcoin can turn into centralization, especially regarding its price if centralization occurs because since the beginning bitcoin will never be centralized and will not be.

Satoshi has made decentralization a characteristic of bitcoin and it is absolutely unchangeable so there is no “if” for the impossible.

We can change the Bitcoin code base any time we want, and it changes all of the time. There was an update just a few days ago. Nothing is "impossible".

And I wouldn't even discount this as being improbable, either. If you told the major holders of BTC that their money could double or triple by making a change to the Bitcoin code base by making it suitable for all transactions, I bet there would be billions of dollars pushing for it--a million times more advertising than a few of us nerds here on BT .

If a central entity controls the architecture, they can change the supply limit or freeze users' funds at will—essentially turning it into a digital version of the US Dollar or a CBDC. In my opinion, the market would react negatively because investors seek Bitcoin as a hedge against centralized systems. Without decentralization, it's just another database. High speed is useless if you don't truly own your money."

A central authority does control the architecture. Where do you think Bitcoin's software comes from, Mars?

And why would a change to the Bitcoin codebase change anything? All of the risks stay the same.

The only reason Bitcoin used a disconnected set of untrusted nodes in the beginning is because that was the only way to avoid shutdown at a time when it was illegal. It's legal now, so Bitcoin's original architecture is pointless now and a waste of resources. It's become this amazing means of speculating and storing wealth, and people love it. And almost everybody uses it through centralized systems like brokers, apps and ETFs, so its clear that the original architecture is meaningless to most investors.

[Ucy]

You clearly don't understand how fiat governments work, plus the fact that any good system that starts operating in the dark by fallible/corrupt people, without checks and balances, will be heavily compromised,  in the case of Bitcoin an absolute debasement or inflation of bitcoins to unlimited amount will occur.
What makes Bitcoin very valuable is the  fact that it's permissionless, deflationary, governments/individuals can't unilaterally do whatever they want with it, they can't just confiscate or freeze users bitcoins like they typically do with fiat currencies, everything has to be according to Bitcoin principles,, etc. So, the fact this is not in the hands of a few who can unilaterally change the rules or do whatever they want to the Bitcoin principles make people more willing to keep pricing Bitcoin higher... It's just like discovering a good country with good rules that can't be compromised. The value of the country will keep going up as number of investors and money going in keep increasing, and the nvestments will be very secure by the system rules which can't be easily debased. But if it's announced that the country and its investments will be handed over to people who won't follow the rules, will operate in secret, won't allow open review of their operations, most of the investments/money will be withdrawn and investors will flee the country. And the country will become way less valuable

[legiteum]

You clearly don't understand how fiat governments work, plus the fact that any good system that starts operating in the dark by fallible/corrupt people, without checks and balances, will be heavily compromised,  in the case of Bitcoin an absolute debasement or inflation of bitcoins to unlimited amount will occur.
[...]

Almost everybody who invests in Bitcoin does so through a centralized system like an app, a broker or one of the ETFs. Maybe you want to avoid the government for your own reasons, but most investors aren't like that and like their lives above board. If Bitcoin was really the underground lawless realm you seem to think it is, the price would still be under $1.00 US because almost nobody would touch it. Bitcoin is defended from 51% attacks by... the US government. If it weren't for governments, who enforce laws keeping things fair, Bitcoin would be destroyed by rogue governments like China or Iran or PRK. 

Oh, and you if you are afraid of banks, you're going to be really afraid of how the internet itself is governed: hint, it's by a bunch of governments and their laws! .

Regardless, all of the conspiracy theory anarchists sold their Bitcoin, the price wouldn't change much. The BIG money in this system is from ordinary investors who live their lives by the rules and don't want to be afraid of their government coming after them for breaking the law. Even if the laws are bad, most don't want to become outlaws.

Conspiracy theory anarchists should use Monero or something like it, not Bitcoin. Bitcoin isn't even private.

[CryptoHeadlineNews]

Other competing products like SOL, ETH, XRP, and so on have moved to less-decentralized architectures and they are bigger than ever. You could make the case that Bitcoin will become "the MySpace of digital currency" if it doesn't evolve to the new realities of the market. On the flip side, you could also argue that Bitcoin could wipe all of these competitors out in a one day just by changing the technical architecture.

My own guess is that Bitcoin would MOON if they announced this, but that's just my guess. I would love to hear what others think of this.

Bitcoin was the first cryptocurrency, and the number crypto people look up to for maximum security, and as such I doubt if Bitcoin would have gone to any moon if it was to be made a centralized digital currency where both government and it's central authorities could have had control over our funds. Because with such implementations, there wouldn't have been any difference Bitcoin and keeping money in our traditional banks, since government has full control over it. However, let's not forget that Bitcoin grew rapidly simply because people were tired of their money been consistent deducted for bank charges, ATM maintenance and likewise been restricted access to their own money when they needed it the most. And when such people heard about Bitcoin, which gave them full control over their funds, they embarrassed it. Hence, Bitcoin can never be a centralized digital currency.

[legiteum]

Bitcoin was the first cryptocurrency, and the number crypto people look up to for maximum security [...]

Decentralization does not improve security. If anything, it makes the system even harder to secure. There have been literally thousands of security breeches in blockchain-based cryptocurrencies, including many with Bitcoin itself early on.

Changing Bitcoin's back end architecture would make it more secure for the simple fact that it would no longer be susceptible to 51% attacks.

However, let's not forget that Bitcoin grew rapidly simply because people were tired of their money been consistent deducted for bank charges, ATM maintenance and likewise been restricted access to their own money when they needed it the most.

Changing Bitcoin's back end architecture would not make it like a bank, or like an ATM, or anything of the kind. Users actually wouldn't notice anything at all except that it's very fast now and tx fees are almost zero. All it would change is that instead of there being many hundreds of people running nodes, there would be a smaller group who would be trusted to do right by Bitcoin--just like the Bitcoin core team is trusted for Bitcoin's code is today.

Hence, Bitcoin can never be a centralized digital currency.

If the Bitcoin core team decided to do it, and key holders of BTC (say like Michael Saylor) were in favor it, then it would happen. It is not, "impossible", it's just computer code.

[TedMosby]

I think if that happens, the price will still be driven by the majority of people/groups that own a lot of BTC and own media (or at least have the money to pay media to share and control the narratives). IMO, in the end, it’s all about the narrative that is built under certain market conditions.

For example, the war between US and Iran.

Buliish narrative:
US-Iran war may trigger WW3. Fear spikes, people start withdrawing money excessively. Banks may restrict withdrawals, trust in fiat declines, and people switch to physical gold and Bitcoin.

Bearish narrative:
The US-Iran war begins. Uncertainty grows over the possibility of WW3. Investors start dumping risk-on assets like stocks and Bitcoin, and move into “wait and see” mode. Gold and bonds become safer choices.

I learned this (two-way narrative) from @mu_enrico  

[SeriouslyGiveaway]

I think if that happens, the price will still be driven by the majority of people/groups that own a lot of BTC and own media (or at least have the money to pay media to share and control the narratives). IMO, in the end, it’s all about the narrative that is built under certain market conditions.

For example, the war between US and Iran.

Buliish narrative:
US-Iran war may trigger WW3. Fear spikes, people start withdrawing money excessively. Banks may restrict withdrawals, trust in fiat declines, and people switch to physical gold and Bitcoin.

Bearish narrative:
The US-Iran war begins. Uncertainty grows over the possibility of WW3. Investors start dumping risk-on assets like stocks and Bitcoin, and move into “wait and see” mode. Gold and bonds become safer choices.

I learned this (two-way narrative) from @mu_enrico  

The narrative itself is for short term or only mid term while in long term, narrative disappears and is replaced by other narratives. In bull market, we have bullish narratives and in bear market, we have bearish narratives so I am neutral with narratives spread in Bitcoin community.

The world changes and I can not predict the future like what the USA will do, Russia will do, big nations will do, but in long term, a good asset like Bitcoin in my opinion will certainly grow up more in its value, and it's only matter of rapid growth or slow growth. The world contributors like army wars, trade wars, health pandemic, economic crisis and recession can affect Bitcoin market and slow down its growth but can not prevent it to happen.

[tygeade]

It would go down, to near zero, or maybe to zero. Bitcoin can never be centralized, hell the whole blockchain is proof of it that it can never be centralized, and for some reason we end up changing the blockchain all together, and give someone the right to centralize it, that would not make any sense at all, and it would crash.

But if anyone ever tries that, like with 51% attack or any other way, we would just move to another chain and would continue with decentralization like we always do. It is one of the most important parts of bitcoin if not the most important part of it, decentralization makes sure that we are not hoping that some person doesn't go crazy and ruin it all, so we really care about that part of it.

[legiteum]

I think if that happens, the price will still be driven by the majority of people/groups that own a lot of BTC and own media (or at least have the money to pay media to share and control the narratives). IMO, in the end, it’s all about the narrative that is built under certain market conditions.
[...]

The narrative itself is for short term or only mid term while in long term, narrative disappears and is replaced by other narratives. In bull market, we have bullish narratives and in bear market, we have bearish narratives so I am neutral with narratives spread in Bitcoin community.
[...]

While I won't get into the details of bullish/bearish narratives based on market events, I completely agree that the market doesn't care about Bitcoin's
technical architecture, and the stuff you are both talking about here is what drives the price of BTC, not how the network happens to work.

It would go down, to near zero, or maybe to zero. Bitcoin can never be centralized, hell the whole blockchain is proof of it that it can never be centralized, and for some reason we end up changing the blockchain all together, and give someone the right to centralize it, that would not make any sense at all, and it would crash.

A change to the Bitcoin core codebase to make Bitcoin run in a specific group of trusted servers and dropping the PoW requirement wouldn't change any of the things you are talking about changing. All it would do is make the thing you currently use a lot faster and cheaper to use.

To be clear, today, somebody (a group of people) absolutely have the right to make these changes: the Bitcoin core team. They make changes to Bitcoin all of the time. They just released a new version yesterday. This notion that "nobody owns Bitcoin" is false. It's a consensus-driven committee, but it's centralized ownership nevertheless.

Bitcoin's ownership can be compared to standards like the DNS system, which runs the whole Internet.

But if anyone ever tries that, like with 51% attack or any other way, we would just move to another chain and would continue with decentralization like we always do. It is one of the most important parts of bitcoin if not the most important part of it, decentralization makes sure that we are not hoping that some person doesn't go crazy and ruin it all, so we really care about that part of it.

Almost all active blocks of Bitcoin are held by a tiny number of very large holders, and most of Bitcoin's users use apps, brokers and ETFs that isolate them from any decision about which fork of Bitcoin to use. As such, "average" people would not have any part to play in this decision. If a tiny number of religious hard-cores sold all of their blocks on the main fork, it wouldn't affect the market hardly at all.

Bitcoin's price is driven by whales and mainstream low-information investors, not us nerds here on BT .

[Fariya456]

"Your point is excellent. Bitcoin's fixed supply of 21 million and its open-source protocol are the reasons why it is different from traditional banking systems. If it were centralized, there would be no transparency and anyone could create new Bitcoins at will, which would drive down its value. Even big investors trust Bitcoin because they know it is not dependent on any political decisions."

[Dunamisx]

Everything we seems to end when bitcoin don't centralize, but we can also see the probability of this happen and being very small or merely impossible, it is a decentralized digital currency and the network has been built in such manner to operate, one thing with centralized currency or institution is that they will tend to make policy and implementation to their own standard and personal interest unlike when we are using a decentralized network that makes everything transferable.

[dansus021]

There is actually a study a real study, on altcoin called RAVE just a couple days ago if bitcoin centralized, and let say more than 50% of total supply is held by centralized person or company the price is gonna be pump and dump just like memecoin. You control the supply you control everything and basically one entity so it would be easy to control the price whether is go up or down at no matter what.

But for now that pretty much impossible because you need ton of money to buy lot of bitcoin at the market price

[macson]

If Bitcoin becomes centralized, that's bad news because what makes Bitcoin different from shitcoins is its decentralization, and that's what makes it so powerful. Just imagine if what made Bitcoin different from shitcoins suddenly turned into that --- that would make Bitcoin not much different from those shitcoins, and there would be no point in trusting a system that's so different from its original purpose. That would cause many people to sell their Bitcoins, and the price of Bitcoin would plummet.

[DiMarxist]

What makes Bitcoin different from other crypto currencies is due to its decentralization which has not given any entity or person the authority to control Bitcoin plus prove of work which every miner should go through before getting Bitcoin. If Bitcoin suddenly becomes centralized and also less costly to mine then the core principles behind Bitcoin is defeated, which will lead to breaking of trust in Bitcoin and when ever trust is broken people will pull out of such a thing no matter how appealing it may be. What will follow is a massive scale of holders selling off there holdings.

[BlackHatCoiner]

The bitcoin price would go down. People buy and hold bitcoin, because they view it an asset with no counterparty risk, first and foremost. If Bitcoin was centralized, it would have a counterparty risk, whether that was a company, a person or a country.

If bitcoin was centralized, and for some reason everybody used it, just like debit cards, it would have higher volume, but it wouldn't necessarily mean it would have a higher price. Unless the 21 million cap was unchanged. I cannot imagine such a reality, unfortunately. Humans are corruptable, and they would find some justification to violate the cap. This is why decentralization is important.

Even if the 21 million cap was unchanged by the "company running bitcoin", I still don't believe people would use it as a saving instrument the same as they do now.

[Youngrebel]

Humans are corruptable, and they would find some justification to violate the cap. 

Yes, human institutions have a track record of bending rules, especially in finance, but it is not inevitable in every system and makes Bitcoin different is that its 21 million cap is not just a promise but it is enforced by code and a decentralized network of participants. If Bitcoin were centralized, then sure, the temptation to change the cap would exist but then, it would not be as simple as humans will definitely break it. It would depend on governance structures, and how much users trust or distrust whoever is in control.