4 ms·

There are no absolutes. Is Bitcoin decentralized? Sure, but not 100%, not every human has perfectly equal say and ability in its functioning - but it is much mo

There are no absolutes. Is Bitcoin decentralized? Sure, but not 100%, not every human has perfectly equal say and ability in its functioning - but it is much more decentralized than other systems and that has value. Smart contracts are similarly high on the code-is-law spectrum relative to other systems. Day-to-day transactions are near perfectly transparent, predictable and repeatable. Changes require highly visible and discussed EIPs or similar. As time goes on and lessons are learned they will likely increase in desired qualities, never fully achieving them, always in a state of pursuit.

beefield 8y ago
> but it is much more decentralized than other systems By which measure? There are more than six thousand banks[1] in US, all of which are perfectly capable to create significant amounts of USD currency. My understanding is that even if the number of Bitcoin miners may be higher, it is still much more concentrated to a hand of a few pools. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_in_the_United_States#Active_banks_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_in_the_United_States#A...
- thinkloop 8y ago
  Generally the central bank dictates the money supply through interest rates. Miners do not wield all the power, it is a dance between miners, economic nodes, developers and finally users. If those stakeholders are not on board it is unlikely for changes to occur. Pools are different from being a single entity. If a thousand miners pooled together to lower their earnings volatility, that is much more decentralized than if one person owned a thousand miners. The individuals can choose to leave the pool or switch at any time. The pool is only a temporary agent. The transactability of crypto is much more decentralized. In traditional banking you must ask for permission to send your money from one bank to another to eventually reach the intended recipient. In crypto it is peer-to-peer. The US has a decent amount of banks, other countries like Canada do not, countries like Venezuela centrally destroyed their currency.
  - orbifold 8y ago
    The central bank has only indirect control over how much money a bank is willing to lend, same goes for other financial instruments like collaterized debt obligations (ways of moving debt of the book of a bank, so that they can lend (i.e. create) more money) and credit default swaps.
tigershark 8y ago
Giving all the power to a bunch of Chinese miners doesn’t fit my definition of decentralisation honestly. I still believe much more in the banking system subject to different governments than anything that is (or can easily be with a minimum effort) in direct control of one single government quite famous for his absolute control over everyone and everything.
- thinkloop 8y ago
  There is nothing systemic or inherent to China having a lot of hash power. They just happen to be strong in silicon manufacturing. This will likely decrease over time and is different from being centralized by rule.

beefield 8y ago

> but it is much more decentralized than other systems By which measure? There are more than six thousand banks[1] in US, all of which are perfectly capable to create significant amounts of USD currency. My understanding is that even if the number of Bitcoin miners may be higher, it is still much more concentrated to a hand of a few pools. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_in_the_United_States#Active_banks_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_in_the_United_States#A...

thinkloop 8y ago
Generally the central bank dictates the money supply through interest rates. Miners do not wield all the power, it is a dance between miners, economic nodes, developers and finally users. If those stakeholders are not on board it is unlikely for changes to occur. Pools are different from being a single entity. If a thousand miners pooled together to lower their earnings volatility, that is much more decentralized than if one person owned a thousand miners. The individuals can choose to leave the pool or switch at any time. The pool is only a temporary agent. The transactability of crypto is much more decentralized. In traditional banking you must ask for permission to send your money from one bank to another to eventually reach the intended recipient. In crypto it is peer-to-peer. The US has a decent amount of banks, other countries like Canada do not, countries like Venezuela centrally destroyed their currency.
- orbifold 8y ago
  The central bank has only indirect control over how much money a bank is willing to lend, same goes for other financial instruments like collaterized debt obligations (ways of moving debt of the book of a bank, so that they can lend (i.e. create) more money) and credit default swaps.

tigershark 8y ago

Giving all the power to a bunch of Chinese miners doesn’t fit my definition of decentralisation honestly. I still believe much more in the banking system subject to different governments than anything that is (or can easily be with a minimum effort) in direct control of one single government quite famous for his absolute control over everyone and everything.

thinkloop 8y ago
There is nothing systemic or inherent to China having a lot of hash power. They just happen to be strong in silicon manufacturing. This will likely decrease over time and is different from being centralized by rule.