It says decentralized on the box!

[iscj]

Here's a question for you guys, if x makes the bitcoin code and labels it as a decentralized online currency, and he then banks on the community to give this thing value, didn't he really just make a centralized snake oil of his creation. Even if a team makes and maintains the code, the code goes from BTC devs -> Users which is centralized isn't it? I've been chatting with a co-worker about this, and we have been pondering the true value of BTC and how it is or isn't truly decentralized. Leave your replies here, I find this all quite interesting.

[311]

Looks like I might be posting in a troll thread. I don't understand how you think it's centralized either? It's decentralized because it is. There's no centralized authority issuing it

[iscj]

But we have to get the code from someone, isnt that by definition a centralized source?

[Whitehouse]

But we have to get the code from someone, isnt that by definition a centralized source?

Just because somebody created it doesn't make it a centralised system. IF you look at the code you will see it is not.

[cryptworld]

I think he may be talking about the decissions
who makes them and why
only some developers of the foundation

[RodeoX]

Does any central authority have control over production, distribution, price, use, ownership? No. That is why it is called a "Decentralized" system. Banks are welcome to get involved. However they will have to play by the same rules as you and I. If they build additional layers of finance on top of the protocol they may be able to leverage greater control over your coins. But you will have to let them by signing contracts with them. For example, many people keep a balance at an online exchange or storage. Those coins are not under their control and they must trust the business that holds them. But that is by their choice.

[guybrushthreepwood]

the "true value" of it is in that code / the software and the people that use it. It's not a centralised system because no one entity is currently controlling it or issuing it. It has true value because people believe it does.

[BitCoinDream]

Here's a question for you guys, if x makes the bitcoin code and labels it as a decentralized online currency, and he then banks on the community to give this thing value, didn't he really just make a centralized snake oil of his creation. Even if a team makes and maintains the code, the code goes from BTC devs -> Users which is centralized isn't it? I've been chatting with a co-worker about this, and we have been pondering the true value of BTC and how it is or isn't truly decentralized. Leave your replies here, I find this all quite interesting.

It is not a decentralized development. It is a decentralized consensus to agree upon a Tx to be true or not. Development is centralized, but it is open for everyone to verify. U may even fork the client at any level and create your own client. Then, u need to win the consensus of people to use that client. Thats it.

[iscj]

But we have to get the code from someone, isnt that by definition a centralized source?

Just because somebody created it doesn't make it a centralised system. IF you look at the code you will see it is not.

Alright, now what in the code would be provisional for this not to fall in line with a ponzi scheme where the original creator banks on the success of his scheme, cashes out, and leaves all investors without a paddle?

I think he may be talking about the decissions
who makes them and why
only some developers of the foundation

And couldn't these developers insert something malicious by design into bitcoin causing some sort of destabilization that they could in turn profit from?

Does any central authority have control over production, distribution, price, use, ownership? No. That is why it is called a "Decentralized" system. Banks are welcome to get involved. However they will have to play by the same rules as you and I. If they build additional layers of finance on top of the protocol they may be able to leverage greater control over your coins. But you will have to let them by signing contracts with them. For example, many people keep a balance at an online exchange or storage. Those coins are not under their control and they must trust the business that holds them. But that is by their choice.

So would you say these exchanges are a way to scheme the user into centralizing the power held by bitcoin users? And also if only the wealthy can efficiently mine at this point is the whole system of bitcoin leveraging power to centralized sources rather than keeping the power hold relatively even?

the "true value" of it is in that code / the software and the people that use it. It's not a centralised system because no one entity is currently controlling it or issuing it. It has true value because people believe it does.

Wouldn't it be that the bitcoin developers are the ones issuing it and thus they would have the control?

Here's a question for you guys, if x makes the bitcoin code and labels it as a decentralized online currency, and he then banks on the community to give this thing value, didn't he really just make a centralized snake oil of his creation. Even if a team makes and maintains the code, the code goes from BTC devs -> Users which is centralized isn't it? I've been chatting with a co-worker about this, and we have been pondering the true value of BTC and how it is or isn't truly decentralized. Leave your replies here, I find this all quite interesting.

It is not a decentralized development. It is a decentralized consensus to agree upon a Tx to be true or not. Development is centralized, but it is open for everyone to verify. U may even fork the client at any level and create your own client. Then, u need to win the consensus of people to use that client. Thats it.

If I fork the code though, then aren't I taking control of the software if it should become a popular fork?

[Razick]

This is a valid concern. The code development is centralized and if people blindly install any new update before it has been peer-reviewed the developers could potentially undermine the network by inserting weaknesses or changing the rules to benefit themselves.

[RodeoX]

... couldn't these developers insert something malicious by design into bitcoin causing some sort of destabilization that they could in turn profit from?

Not really. It is up to a majority of the users to accept new code or not. In any case, destabilization is not profitable for anyone.

Does any central authority have control over production, distribution, price, use, ownership? No. That is why it is called a "Decentralized" system. Banks are welcome to get involved. However they will have to play by the same rules as you and I. If they build additional layers of finance on top of the protocol they may be able to leverage greater control over your coins. But you will have to let them by signing contracts with them. For example, many people keep a balance at an online exchange or storage. Those coins are not under their control and they must trust the business that holds them. But that is by their choice.

So would you say these exchanges are a way to scheme the user into centralizing the power held by bitcoin users? And also if only the wealthy can efficiently mine at this point is the whole system of bitcoin leveraging power to centralized sources rather than keeping the power hold relatively even?

I think a lot of exchanges are crooked. In the future perhaps crooked banks will also join in. But they can in no way compel me to use their service. I can do what I like with my coins, I can even destroy them if I want. I think your right that mining has become so expensive that is no longer a grass roots activity. But it is not really unfair. They will invest a fortune into hardware that supports the network. Any profit they realize is payment for work. You or I could sell our worldly possessions and join in. It would be risky, but it is always risky to mine. 

[remotemass]

It is decentralized because nodes/computers do their job independently.
You don't have a central server that you can attack. There is no single point of failure.
If you stop some nodes/computers from working: the network becomes a bit less secure and reliable because it will have a bit less computer power. But apart from that, it really doesn't affect.
It is like an animal beast that you cannot defeat by cutting it in pieces. You can one member of it apart and it keeps working without problems.

[zedicus]

There is not a "dev team" that works on bitcoin. The closest thing to this is the team that works for the bitcoin foundation, however what they recommend/release will not necessarily be implemented by the miners and network. When they release an update the bitcoin community and other stakeholders will have a chance to "look at" the code and decide if they want to implement it or not.