There's two ways in which bitcoin is less decentralised than you make it seem 1. Proof of work has a strong economy of scale, the cost per amount of mining rew

There's two ways in which bitcoin is less decentralised than you make it seem 1. Proof of work has a strong economy of scale, the cost per amount of mining reward gets less as your mining infrastructure increases, incentivising huge mining pools. I expect that within a few years 90% of the hash power will be controlled by 2 or 3 large organisations. Even at 33% hash power you can do funky things to fuck up the chain, but of course at 51% it is game over. Proof of stake is favourable because it has no economy of reward: you get rewards exactly proportional to what you stake. Really both are bad because they're both plutocratic 2. As far as I can tell, a vast majority of nodes run Bitcoin Core, which is a single community-developed piece of software. All of the nodes run this same piece of software, so the blockchain is really an emergent system from this one piece of software. Of course this makes the network bug prone, but it also means that it's only luck that the community hasn't decided on hard forks which effectively will force everyone to move over to a new version of the chain. Not only this, but soft forks are also coercive in a similar way It is not yet clear that bitcoin will continue to deliver on its promise of decentralisation