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

[Bastketsrus]

Positive reaction: "Wow, BTC is going to absolutely MOON since adoption will go crazy now that we can use Bitcoin everywhere, I'm buying every sat I can to get on this rocket ship!"

Several factors make the Bitcoin price go high. Adoption is one of them, but we shouldn't overlook the halving and the bull run. Massive adoption might not necessarily lead to an increase in the value of Bitcoin; rather, it might make it a common currency. The reason why we see a massive rise is that Bitcoin is widely used as an asset. I have not seen currency like the dollars going to the moon because of massive adoption. A centralised Bitcoin system might destroy the four-year cycle, which might end the halving and bull run.

Many people or institutions are interested in Bitcoin because no single individual or group of people controls the network. You are right that the market can be manipulated. But centralising the system would make manipulation easier.

Yeah true, adoption alone doesn’t mean price will go up. Bitcoin works more as an asset now, and decentralization is what really matters. Even in things like bitcoin betting, that’s why people trust it.

[Jubilee58]

If Bitcoin was centralized, i wouldn't become a bitcoin investor. Centralized currencies are being controlled by the federal government, besides any currency that is being controlled is liable to inflation, and depreciation. Based on these facts, Bitcoin wouldn't have been a good asset for investment, and would have depreciated in value instead of growing in value.
Decentralization has really granted Bitcoin investors autonomy, investors, and holders are no longer caged in the control of a central authority, but now decides the way they manage and control their money.
You can now send money at your own convenience with cheaper rate, and you don't even need to visit the bank any longer for any financial transaction.

[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.
[...]

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.

-snip-

Agree with you, SeriouslyGiveaway. The narrative is for the short term. But IMO, the long term condition is built from short term conditions that are repeated consistently. The long term is built on short term wins and losses. And the last thing, I still think Bitcoin is a new technology. We don’t clearly know yet how short “short term” is and how long “long term” is. Again, IMO, most people are in Bitcoin because of the money, not the technology. If there were no economic benefits from capital gains, this project would probably have ended a long time ago.

[Abiky]

If Bitcoin was centralized, i wouldn't become a bitcoin investor. Centralized currencies are being controlled by the federal government, besides any currency that is being controlled is liable to inflation, and depreciation. Based on these facts, Bitcoin wouldn't have been a good asset for investment, and would have depreciated in value instead of growing in value.
Decentralization has really granted Bitcoin investors autonomy, investors, and holders are no longer caged in the control of a central authority, but now decides the way they manage and control their money.
You can now send money at your own convenience with cheaper rate, and you don't even need to visit the bank any longer for any financial transaction.

You won't. But most people will. Because the majority doesn't care about decentralization at all. Consider how the masses are buying centralized "shitcoins" like crazy. Even if such coins are at a higher risk of shutting down in the future. XRP, BNB, and WLFI are one of those coins.

Let's hope Bitcoin never becomes centralized. As long as the community fights back, there should be nothing to worry about.

[Catenaccio]

You won't. But most people will. Because the majority doesn't care about decentralization at all. Consider how the masses are buying centralized "shitcoins" like crazy. Even if such coins are at a higher risk of shutting down in the future. XRP, BNB, and WLFI are one of those coins.

Let's hope Bitcoin never becomes centralized. As long as the community fights back, there should be nothing to worry about.

Many people don't care about privacy or decentralization and it's clearly by looking at news on newspapers, online newspapers, social media as people are interested in centralized altcoins. They even hoped that Ethereum, Ripple flipping Bitcoin in market cap in some years ago, and that shown how people were very FOMO with Ethereum and Ripple while we all knew that these altcoins are very centralized especially Ripple.

So if Bitcoin blockchain becomes centralized, it won't make many people leaving this asset as investment.

What is the flippening and why it matters in crypto?
The flippening watch.

[Minor Miner]

You won't. But most people will. Because the majority doesn't care about decentralization at all. Consider how the masses are buying centralized "shitcoins" like crazy. Even if such coins are at a higher risk of shutting down in the future. XRP, BNB, and WLFI are one of those coins.

Let's hope Bitcoin never becomes centralized. As long as the community fights back, there should be nothing to worry about.

Based on what he said, he is afraid that Bitcoin will fall instead of rise if it becomes centralized. It is clear that what he cares about and fears is not about decentralization itself, but rather the fear of losing money and not making a profit if Bitcoin become a centralized asset.

This means that if Bitcoin become centralized but still increases in price and generates huge profit, he will still invest in it.

You are right, in fact, what people are really interested in when it comes to Bitcoin is the profit it generates, not its decentralized nature.

[Uhwuchukwu53]

Well I believe those that ask similar question like this always forget in a hurry the kind of challenge and what many investing in decentralized exchange is running away from, the issue of not having control but been control by government or having even a middle personality in one asset.many centralized exchange today is dwindling because of their centralized because they are under pressure of being monitored and controlled, the high rate of people going into Bitcoin would have reduced drastically if it's centralized because many don't have much comfort with centralized where their activities or asset can be controlled.

[Danica22]

You won't. But most people will. Because the majority doesn't care about decentralization at all. Consider how the masses are buying centralized "shitcoins" like crazy. Even if such coins are at a higher risk of shutting down in the future. XRP, BNB, and WLFI are one of those coins.

Let's hope Bitcoin never becomes centralized. As long as the community fights back, there should be nothing to worry about.

Many people don't care about privacy or decentralization and it's clearly by looking at news on newspapers, online newspapers, social media as people are interested in centralized altcoins. They even hoped that Ethereum, Ripple flipping Bitcoin in market cap in some years ago, and that shown how people were very FOMO with Ethereum and Ripple while we all knew that these altcoins are very centralized especially Ripple.

So if Bitcoin blockchain becomes centralized, it won't make many people leaving this asset as investment.

What is the flippening and why it matters in crypto?
The flippening watch.

Another piece of evidence showing that the majority of investor do not really care about privacy and decentralization is that most of them use CEX instead of DEX. Trading volume on CEX still accounts for the majority and far exceed trading volume on DEX. Or many people have switched to investing in bitcoin ETF instead of holding Bitcoin on the blockchain. Clearly, profit is everyone's top priority.

[MorganaX]

You won't. But most people will. Because the majority doesn't care about decentralization at all. Consider how the masses are buying centralized "shitcoins" like crazy. Even if such coins are at a higher risk of shutting down in the future. XRP, BNB, and WLFI are one of those coins.

Let's hope Bitcoin never becomes centralized. As long as the community fights back, there should be nothing to worry about.

Based on what he said, he is afraid that Bitcoin will fall instead of rise if it becomes centralized. It is clear that what he cares about and fears is not about decentralization itself, but rather the fear of losing money and not making a profit if Bitcoin become a centralized asset.

This means that if Bitcoin become centralized but still increases in price and generates huge profit, he will still invest in it.

You are right, in fact, what people are really interested in when it comes to Bitcoin is the profit it generates, not its decentralized nature.

Well don't be surprised mate, I can tell you for free that they are so many other persons even in the community here that are off this sort of mentality when it comes to Bitcoin, the initial course for which Bitcoin was actually created has shifted so much that people don't see the usefulness of Bitcoin as a decentralized means of processing monetary transactions rather they edge on the part that it can be solely used as a mean of profit via its volatility and it's capability to serve as a store of value.

[abaeze]

All the 'If's' you have in your mind about Bitcoin, there are all the answers to this question and that is - what was the reason for creating Bitcoin? Bitcoin was created to protect our assets from government pressure or control, so if there is no decentralization, it will no longer be Bitcoin, that is, I mean Decentralization is the core system/core foundation of Bitcoin. It was created to prevent government banks from freezing people's accounts, so if Bitcoin itself runs on the previous system or Bitcoin is not effective against the centralized supply rule then I think there is no need for it. And these fears were the reason for creating Bitcoin.

Another thing is that the main value of Bitcoin stands on 3 things. That is:-
1. Censorship resistance
2. Fixed supply, 21M
3. Decentralization
So if any of these becomes ineffective, Bitcoin is clinically dead and the hypothetical changes you are talking about such as: speed, fees, decentralization, these are not small changes. So if this change happens, Bitcoin will no longer be Bitcoin but will become something else, which will have no intensive value.

[legiteum]

All the 'If's' you have in your mind about Bitcoin, there are all the answers to this question and that is - what was the reason for creating Bitcoin? Bitcoin was created to protect our assets from government pressure or control, [...]

No, it wasn't. And Bitcoin absolutely does not do that. Bitcoin is based on a public ledger, which makes it straightforward to track down holders. If you are being investigated by your government and you hold Bitcoin, your authorities can find out about your Bitcoin holdings.

If you want avoid your government, only products like Monero will help you do that (and even then, you would need to be very careful when you exchanged it for real-world assets).

But regardless, Bitcoin was never intentionally created to help people avoid government investigation and prosecution.

[...] so if there is no decentralization, it will no longer be Bitcoin, that is, I mean Decentralization is the core system/core foundation of Bitcoin. It was created to prevent government banks from freezing people's accounts, so if Bitcoin itself runs on the previous system or Bitcoin is not effective against the centralized supply rule then I think there is no need for it. And these fears were the reason for creating Bitcoin.

Another thing is that the main value of Bitcoin stands on 3 things. That is:-
1. Censorship resistance
2. Fixed supply, 21M
3. Decentralization

So if any of these becomes ineffective, Bitcoin is clinically dead and the hypothetical changes you are talking about such as: speed, fees, decentralization, these are not small changes. So if this change happens, Bitcoin will no longer be Bitcoin but will become something else, which will have no intensive value.

Decentralization (in the way I am using the term in this thread, please read my note above) is just a technical architecture that had a specific goal, and you can accomplish #1 and #2 with a different technical architecture as well.

The Bitcoin core team (which is, necessarily, centralized) can change the 21M limit any time they want. What keeps them from doing that is not some kind of magic inside of the Bitcoin codebase, it's just a consensus from the community--which would be the same for any sort of technical approach to implementing Bitcoin.

Today, millions of people hold Bitcoin and place a high value on it. Are you saying that, because of some invisible changes to the codebase they are all suddenly going to decide their own holdings are worthless? Perhaps a few people will, but most would just want their investment to keep its value and they would say and do everything they could in order to make that happen.

In other words, if they made this change to Bitcoin to make it fast and cheap enough to handle every transaction in the world and viable as a true universal currency, do you think Michael Saylor would immediately go out there and say, "OMG Bitcoin is worthless now!"? Of course he wouldn't--that would be suicide. In fact, it would be quite the opposite and he would most likely get behind the change and tell everybody that this change is going to moon the price.

[bitcoindusts]

If Bitcoin was centralized, i wouldn't become a bitcoin investor. Centralized currencies are being controlled by the federal government, besides any currency that is being controlled is liable to inflation, and depreciation. Based on these facts, Bitcoin wouldn't have been a good asset for investment, and would have depreciated in value instead of growing in value.
Decentralization has really granted Bitcoin investors autonomy, investors, and holders are no longer caged in the control of a central authority, but now decides the way they manage and control their money.
You can now send money at your own convenience with cheaper rate, and you don't even need to visit the bank any longer for any financial transaction.

You won't. But most people will. Because the majority doesn't care about decentralization at all. Consider how the masses are buying centralized "shitcoins" like crazy. Even if such coins are at a higher risk of shutting down in the future. XRP, BNB, and WLFI are one of those coins.

Let's hope Bitcoin never becomes centralized. As long as the community fights back, there should be nothing to worry about.

This simply shows that people are into profit.  They actually disregard the cryptocurrency function and usage, all they are focus with is how they can profit over the cryptocurrency, may it be Bitcoin or any alternative cryptocurrency.

So the question of whether Bitcoin price will go up or down if Bitcoin become centralized rely solely on the number of investors that will get hyped or get disappointed on the shift of  Bitcoin system.  But personally, if there is a group of company or person behind that will hype the market when BTC became centralized, it will obviously surge to a great length since there will be a ripple effect once an action is taken specially hyping the Bitcoin market.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

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.

I highly doubt that bitcoin would moon upon such announcement that that part of the bitcoin infrastructure will be made less decentralised than they been before now, well, this is just my own personal opinion though, I understand a lot of people don't read and if the price of bitcoin moons upon such announcement, it's basically because investors didn't read the announcement but simply jump or fomoed into the growing price, or they actually read but don't really understand what they read.

As much as there are many investors who actually do not care about the infrastructure bitcoin is built on, but the only thing they want to see is the price of bitcoin going up, there are still a lot of investors too who trust and invest in bitcoin only because it's a decentralised currency or asset that both the government and no one has any control over, for people like, such a news as you said will be very disappointing for sure, so whether the price of bitcoin will go up or not upon sucb a news will depend on which side is more - those who are in bitcoin for the price and those who are in bitcoin for the decentralization.

[legiteum]

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.

I highly doubt that bitcoin would moon upon such announcement that that part of the bitcoin infrastructure will be made less decentralised than they been before now, well, this is just my own personal opinion though, I understand a lot of people don't read and if the price of bitcoin moons upon such announcement, it's basically because investors didn't read the announcement but simply jump or fomoed into the growing price, or they actually read but don't really understand what they read.

As much as there are many investors who actually do not care about the infrastructure bitcoin is built on, but the only thing they want to see is the price of bitcoin going up, there are still a lot of investors too who trust and invest in bitcoin only because it's a decentralised currency or asset that both the government and no one has any control over, for people like, such a news as you said will be very disappointing for sure, so whether the price of bitcoin will go up or not upon sucb a news will depend on which side is more - those who are in bitcoin for the price and those who are in bitcoin for the decentralization.

It occurs to me that Bitcoin wouldn't moon on the announcement, but rather over time based on massively increased mainstream adoption. In other words, Bitcoin would quietly prove itself to be part of the world's payment infrastructure and would start to get connected to everything--and wipe out hundreds of other products (including mine lol)--because it would suddenly be used for billions of everyday payments, which would reinforce it's place in the financial system. And all of this would lead higher prices as Bitcoin simply becomes an indispensable part of the system rather than just a thing you speculate on in your spare time. In other words, Bitcoin would go from being a toy to being a serious thing that people would rely upon in their everyday lives.

Hence I suspect that the initial market reaction might be muted, but longer term there would be much more upside.

[sunsilk]

The original purpose is never gone for Bitcoin IMO. And the added features is being likened by the institutions. Thus, we see a lot of them adopt and hold it.

Before, whenever such good news are announced. We'd see a complete moon and skyrocket asap in less than a day.

But this time, if something like such is announced. I don't think we'd see the effect of it quickly.

[Ambatman]

It occurs to me that Bitcoin wouldn't moon on the announcement, but rather over time based on massively increased mainstream adoption. In other words, Bitcoin would quietly prove itself to be part of the world's payment infrastructure and would start to get connected to everything--and wipe out hundreds of other products (including mine lol)--because it would suddenly be used for billions of everyday payments, which would reinforce it's place in the financial system. And all of this would lead higher prices as Bitcoin simply becomes an indispensable part of the system rather than just a thing you speculate on in your spare time. In other words, Bitcoin would go from being a toy to being a serious thing that people would rely upon in their everyday lives.

Hence I suspect that the initial market reaction might be muted, but longer term there would be much more upside.

I don't know if you don't know but Bitcoin wasn't created for everyone
It's an alternative but those that want decentralisation and self custody.
It's selling point and why most consider it a giant is because is the closest money to decentralisation we have.
Rather than Bitcoin becoming like Fiat
Why don't Fiat improve via CBDC.

[BADecker]

Bitcoin has been around for over 18 years, now. Yet only a small percentage of the population is using it seriously.

People are dumb. Only a small percentage of them are smart and use Bitcoin in a serious way. If Bitcoin became  centralized, the rest of the people would use it. And when all the people used it, it would naturally go up.

[Franklyn-wood]

I feel that the decentralization of bitcoin takes more effects in the security of the network and not in volatility. Bitcoin can be centralized and still the price will go positive or negative.

That being said, bitcoin volatility is determined by the demand and supply factor and then sealed by the scarcity model. So, there will still be movement of bitcoin price even if it's centralized. The problem and the doubt will come in a a critical point - ensuring that 21 million BTC cap supply is not altered behind the scene. This is the point that the decentralization is influencing the price.

I agree I think that if we are even taking about bitcoin price and volatility the case for decentralization shouldn’t be brought up. This is because decentralization is a network thing and not actually tied to price. Bitcoin price is dependent on the market demand or supply and not about how the network of bitcoin is. Decentralization should only come into discussion when the discussion is about nodes.

As for how the price will fair if the coin is actually centralized I think bitcoin will lose investors for sure, because some investors are after bitcoin not just of some of the other values it is adds like store of value but because it’s not controlled by any singular entity. So let’s say bitcoin is centralized today then I will say that the price will fall

There is every possibility that if Bitcoin is centralized it prize will go high beyond the current amount it is because everyone will want to have it to them selves to do vertically everything posible. Another thing is that Bitcoin is not available like every other coins out there, and it scarcity will make it more valuable and increase it prices. Bitcoin being volatility makes Bitcoin aore reliable assets  everyone most have, it will help to stabilize sales and prices of good and services.

[Orpichukwu]

Another piece of evidence showing that the majority of investor do not really care about privacy and decentralization is that most of them use CEX instead of DEX. Trading volume on CEX still accounts for the majority and far exceed trading volume on DEX. Or many people have switched to investing in bitcoin ETF instead of holding Bitcoin on the blockchain. Clearly, profit is everyone's top priority.

Not just the majority of the people are not bothered about privacy in this era, but most of the people who come to crypto after its first pump and create a massive trend are into it because of the profit; as their primary objective, the features of Bitcoin come second to them, and they really don't care about privacy, while those who do still try as much as they can to use DEX, while a few are fearful of regulation, which is why they are using centralised exchanges, the same regulations that are supposed to be the reason they choose Bitcoin over fiat.

[free-bit.co.in]

As for how the price will fair if the coin is actually centralized I think bitcoin will lose investors for sure, because some investors are after bitcoin not just of some of the other values it is adds like store of value but because it’s not controlled by any singular entity. So let’s say bitcoin is centralized today then I will say that the price will fall

There are still many investor coming to Bitcoin not only for profit, but also for belief in decentralization and its ability to store value...However, the reality is those reasons are only secondary, profit remains the top priority for most investor. Therefore, I believe that as long as Bitcoin remain highly volatile and grows exponentially, people will continue to invest heavily in it even if it become more centralized.

Currently, the largest flow of money into the market is through ETF, which indicates that most investor prioritize returns above all else.