Bitcoin isn't decentralized…

[Byebyebtc]

Does it mean that developers control Bitcoin? If yes, How we call it as decentralized?

They only have influence, they do not have control.

If I understand it well, Bitcoin developer can update the software and tag it as a better option, but its only if the node operators, miners, exchanges etc accepts it, and if they don't they can stiick to the already existing software, but if there happens to be an issue and the new update seem to be a solution them it will be accepted by all and that problem gets solved, that's what the influence it

So basically developers can not change the rules or control Bitcoin but they can actually influence it only if accepted

[SeriouslyGiveaway]

They only have influence, they do not have control.

They have contributions, but not actually influence Bitcoin protocol and Bitcoin communities too much with their bad ideas and weak BIPs.
BIP-100 is an example for you, it's a new BIP but it failed even you know the person, the developer behinds that BIP is Luke who is a senior Bitcoin developer.

Luke used to be a forum moderator too before he was removed after his forum account was hacked, his Bitcoin wallet was compromised.

If I understand it well, Bitcoin developer can update the software and tag it as a better option, but its only if the node operators, miners, exchanges etc accepts it, and if they don't they can stiick to the already existing software, but if there happens to be an issue and the new update seem to be a solution them it will be accepted by all and that problem gets solved, that's what the influence it

So basically developers can not change the rules or control Bitcoin but they can actually influence it only if accepted

They can program new BIPs, and Bitcoin community will decide they accept such new BIPs or ignore them. Ignorance means early deaths for such new BIPs, and means there is no influence at all.

[Taskford]

There is no such thing as a perfect system so obviously we don't have a perfectly decentralized Bitcoin either but Bitcoin is still decentralized and as others have already told you, being decentralized means nobody can force you to run anything. You can choose any consensus rules that you want and if the majority of the network run the same thing as you, then that is The Bitcoin.

In Bitcoin we only have small traces of centralization and that's normal and there is not much we can do about it. Like for example hashrate being concentrated in one jurisdiction (eg. CEX.io's GHash.io pool gained >51% hashrate in 2014). These incidents aren't changing the fact that Bitcoin is still decentralized.

Indeed Bitcoin don't need to be like that. After all I agree with those important points you raised here. Good aspects to look at is there's no one could have full control on Bitcoin.

So even if there's some threat about possible changes that can affect the community, that situation will be implemented only if the node operators agree to enforce that.

The incident happen way back 2014 on Ghash, actually shows the risk is true or exist. But that situation also highlight the resilient of Bitcoin. Then the reason why its been called as the best decentralized coin. Bitcoin resist to any manipulative acts done by manipulators and this coin always function independently.

[Faisal2202]

Why does it feel like this is another dubious attempt of a BIP-110 fan to catch some attention?

Highly likely, but bip-110 has no hope.

But he definitely had the wrong idea about blockchain, miners, and validators. He needs a tutorial, a guide to know everything about Bitcoin at a basic level.

They have contributions, but not actually influence Bitcoin protocol and Bitcoin communities too much with their bad ideas and weak BIPs.
BIP-100 is an example for you, it's a new BIP but it failed even you know the person, the developer behinds that BIP is Luke who is a senior Bitcoin developer.

Luke used to be a forum moderator too before he was removed after his forum account was hacked, his Bitcoin wallet was compromised.

Are you sure you are talking about BIP100 or BIP110? Because the developer behind BIP100 was not Luke, although Luke's involvement was in BIP110, he is also not the author, as far as I know the author was Dathon, although Luke was an associate and he is responsible for many things in BIP110. You need to clarify here.

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

Does it mean that developers control Bitcoin? If yes, How we call it decentralized?

Questions like these are what is expected of a newbie to ask, because they don't know it, but also taking a bold step to research online and learn to know why bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency is as important as what is expected of them to do, and the fact we always remain that bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency and cannot be censored irrespective of the government regulation or the approach people are giving it.

[#CapsLOck]

I believe the problem is people taking decentralisation out of the context of a continuum and making it a binary switch. Some concentration of influence in the development, mining or infrastructure can be decentralized in bitcoin. Developers can make suggestions since they know the code. But have a different influence compared to having control over the network. The question is not whether there is any influence or not. But whether that influence group can force the rest of us to do what it wants. But as long as independent players have the option to refuse to accept the change and to enforce other rules, influence does not become a centralized control.

[MarryWithBTC]

Bitcoin has no CEO or formal central authority. But software development inevitably involves people who have more influence than ordinary users. Bitcoin core is extremely important because the software determines which blocks and transactions a node considers valid. Bitcoin.org itself says users running Bitcoin core independently enforce the rules. And the Bitcoin developer documentation explicitly acknowledges that Bitcoin's security depends on the behavior of software maintaining consensus.

Does it mean that developers control Bitcoin? If yes, How we call it as decentralized?

Okay! Let me answer you literally. Developers control bitcoin... But;

They are not the developers from only US, and neither are they Developers from Russia.

Friend, they are not Micheal Saylor's developers So, there's no cause for alarm.

You too can be a developer, you too can run a node, you too can contribute in the decision making.

Even if we all agree with you that developers control bitcoin, they are not centralized developers.

[Ambatman]

Okay! Let me answer you literally. Developers control bitcoin... But;

They are not the developers from only US, and neither are they Developers from Russia.

Friend, they are not Micheal Saylor's developers So, there's no cause for alarm.

You too can be a developer, you too can run a node, you too can contribute in the decision making.

Even if we all agree with you that developers control bitcoin, they are not centralized developers.

No they don't.
Developers have significant influence over bitcoin core but they don't control the bitcoin network
Bitcoin core is a client among many others
Node cab choose to run whatever client they want
They can't be forced to run a code.
And also Developers been in different countries doesn't necessarily prevent developers centralization.

[Nheer]

Does it mean that developers control Bitcoin? If yes, How we call it as decentralized?

They only have influence, they do not have control.

If I understand it well, Bitcoin developer can update the software and tag it as a better option, but its only if the node operators, miners, exchanges etc accepts it, and if they don't they can stiick to the already existing software, but if there happens to be an issue and the new update seem to be a solution them it will be accepted by all and that problem gets solved, that's what the influence it

So basically developers can not change the rules or control Bitcoin but they can actually influence it only if accepted

That's where the real decentralization comes from, no developer, exchange, or body can decide what Bitcoin will be like on their own without everyone agreeing to it. Everyone has a role to play and so if they all don't agree then the update doesn't become a rule, no one can forcefully make it a rule, if it will change Bitcoin's fundamental rule. Decentralization is basically when no one has full control over something and that's exactly how Bitcoin is, no single person controls it and you can choose to run whatever you want, if you are not impressed with a certain update you can ignore it.

[MarryWithBTC]

No they don't.
Developers have significant influence over bitcoin core but they don't control the bitcoin network

Yes, check my quote... I was trying to give the Op back their own pills by using the "even if" phrase.

Okay! Let me answer you literally. Developers control bitcoin... But;

And also Developers been in different countries doesn't necessarily prevent developers centralization.

This is where it gets interesting...

Apart from developers clustering and the second example I gave above, as Michael Saylor's developers - meaning developers from a central authority, how again can centralization be achieved

[Cookdata]

Everyone is free to run their own Nodes in their basements, developers do not control Bitcoin, if what you want is the Core developers to stay out of Bitcoin completely you aren't getting that, they have influence over Bitcoin and this doesn't mean controlling Bitcoin, the decentralisation that's missing is how you OP decides to use your Bitcoin.

Tell me, since you have been buying and holding Bitcoin have you been using it in a decentralised way? Have you not pass KYC on my online exchanges to buy Bitcoin? Have you not moved your Bitcoin into a custodial account or wallet? This is what you should be looking into, leave the nodes and the core team alone, simple DYOR will guide you right on that, Bitcoin remains decentralised.

If you look at the OP structure of posts, it's so obvious that the main objective of the question was directed at Bitcoin Core, when in fact there are a couple of other Bitcoin implementations, but they don't have wide adoption like Bitcoin Core. Seems like some people don't even know how Bitcoin Core became so adopted, the developers that are managing core didn't create core from scratch, it was an improve version of Bitcoin which was used back then.

I think some of the people that are raising this questions and debate over and over actually know but they choose to act like they don't know must of the things. You can choose to use core or not, it is your choice, there are many other implementations, go make it popular and influence people to use it. If they trust it enough, people will use it but core must survive.

[alastantiger]

Bitcoin will remain decentralized, as there's no central authority that can unilaterally regulate Bitcoin. Therefore, all decisions must be negotiated collectively, and that's why Bitcoin will remain a secure asset. Although there are rumors that quantum computers will threaten Bitcoin, I'm confident that the great Bitcoin developers will find ways to anticipate that. So,, I hope Bitcoin developers stay healthy, because they truly contribute to maintaining the security of the Bitcoin network. Also, please correct me if my assumption is wrong.

Quantum compute if it ever gets developed is not only a threat to Bitcoin but it is a threat to everything because nothing is going to be safe that is why I do not think such technology will be allowed to be opened to the public and I do not think we can achieve that.

Bitcoin is decentralized and it has many features to support this including privacy hence Bitcoin can not be controlled, it does not matter what the govenwmmt or anyone thinks about the process of buying and selling Bitcoin that is not decentralized enough yet but we still have many ways of purchasing Bitcoin while not allowing your identity to be known and you can also sell this way too. With P2P on decentralized exchanges, you can exchange your Bitcoin to fiats hence all the efforts of trying to centralized Bitcoin is not working.

[NeuroticFish]

Okay! Let me answer you literally. Developers control bitcoin...

No, they don't. It would be nice if you read more and answer based on knowledge, not feeling.

Anybody can make his own Bitcoin node software (whether from scratch or from the git repo). Nowadays you no longer even need programming skills, an AI agent can help you out.
Or one can take and use an older version if he wants to and doesn't like whatever feature.

As long as the client doesn't break the consensus, it's just fine.
And in the same way, the devs can make whatever change they want in the code, but that doesn't automatically mean that anybody would want to use the new client/version.
Any significant change is being prepared carefully exactly because of this. Changes are signaled, certain rules are being applied, and only if the vast majority of clients agree with the change it will become the new standard.

So while the devs can have some persuasive power given their knowledge, ultimately the nodes, the users are the ones who approve a change. It looks pretty decentralized to me.

[pooya87]

The incident happen way back 2014 on Ghash, actually shows the risk is true or exist. But that situation also highlight the resilient of Bitcoin. Then the reason why its been called as the best decentralized coin. Bitcoin resist to any manipulative acts done by manipulators and this coin always function independently.

It doesn't happen automatically though, it takes a lot of effort and vigilance.

For example in case of the GHASH.io situation, the community got activated and started raising alarms about the dangers of this level of hashrate centralization and there even were discussions about solutions to counter it. That type of pressure scared this cloud mining company and pool into voluntarily reducing its hashrate and miners to migrate to other pools.

[Brizi5000]

Bitcoin has no CEO or formal central authority. But software development inevitably involves people who have more influence than ordinary users. Bitcoin core is extremely important because the software determines which blocks and transactions a node considers valid. Bitcoin.org itself says users running Bitcoin core independently enforce the rules. And the Bitcoin developer documentation explicitly acknowledges that Bitcoin's security depends on the behavior of software maintaining consensus.

Does it mean that developers control Bitcoin? If yes, How we call it as decentralized?

Op I can understand your argument but the truth is that bitcoin works as a decentralized network and there’s no bitcoin core developer or company or any organization that owns or controls bitcoin. Developers can can only suggest or propose an idea for update which will still need a general overview by bitcoin’s ecosystem to come to agreement with such updates and at such can be rejected by the bitcoin ecosystem if there’s a malicious intent regarding the protocol update.

[Junii]

Does it mean that developers control Bitcoin? If yes, How we call it as decentralized?

Dude may be developers have some sort of influence but they are not controlling the bitcoin like some thing we control it in a traditional way.  The work of developers is to write down or if needed then do some changes in the software while node freely verifies the mentioned rules also if developers share something and the users did not like it then they stop working on it i read some where that in 2017 or 2016 sorry i did not remember the exact year but some developers want SegWit2x  in which they said that they will increase the Bitcoin's block size. But many users did not accept the change and the developers stops working on it.

[Anthony Bill]

Is no longer a new thing that Satoshi is the founder of Bitcoin and he or them created Bitcoin to reduced unemployment and improved employment in the world. Based on little research I have carried out about Bitcoin and I discovered that Bitcoin is a decentralized currency that is not control by government or financial institution, but is control by buyers and sellers.

[Silverstonez]

Does it mean that developers control Bitcoin? If yes, How we call it as decentralized?

Developers don’t control bitcoin and I don’t know how you came up with this.  Although it may seem like the software is being developed by people with high influence,  but that doesn’t mean they have control over the network or the ability to change the rules.  Bitcoin itself was designed to be decentralized from the beginning and it has remained that way since then,  and no single person or group of people has control over its rules.

[Dogedegen]

They only have influence, they do not have control.

They have contributions, but not actually influence Bitcoin protocol and Bitcoin communities too much with their bad ideas and weak BIPs.

I think you might have jumped too fast on a specific interpretation of the word influence. The user has described this correctly, and I can expand on it a bit. Actually everyone who is in the Bitcoin network has influence over it, this includes even the smallest members with the smallest holdings. That is how a free market is going to function, and it does not need to have an equal distribution of influence to be decentralized. That participants have different levels of influence, that they freely come and go is a sign that this decentralized social network is working as it is.

Is no longer a new thing that Satoshi is the founder of Bitcoin and he or them created Bitcoin to reduced unemployment and improved employment in the world. Based on little research I have carried out about Bitcoin and I discovered that Bitcoin is a decentralized currency that is not control by government or financial institution, but is control by buyers and sellers.

I have never heard of this claim before and I don't think it is true. Where did you read that Bitcoin was created to reduce unemployment?

[cryptoaddictchie]

Is no longer a new thing that Satoshi is the founder of Bitcoin and he or them created Bitcoin to reduced unemployment and improved employment in the world.

I almost peed my pants. I dont think bitcoin was created in order to reduce unemployment. Its not like a magic saviour for anyone who dont have job. Yes bitcoin value is high by thats because of market condition and buyers and sellers make it grow but how come you think its for the unemployed users? Bitcoin isnt a job that we can work on. Its decentralized concept makes it more appealing and by nature becomes the reality of uncontrolled finance system.