Decentralization is a key tool for creating Bitcoin's value proposition, but it isn't a value in and of itself.

[rogerver]

Decentralization is a key tool for creating Bitcoin's value proposition, but it isn't a value in and of itself. It is the utility created by decentralization that in part gives bitcoin its value.

Agree?
Disagree?
Why, or why not?

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Decentralization is a key tool for creating Bitcoin's value proposition, but it isn't a value in and of itself. It is the utility created by decentralization that in part gives bitcoin its value.

Agree?
Disagree?
Why, or why not?

Agreed.

I am confident you will use Bitcoin.com to host the real bitcoind and its original Bitcoin network.

[mably]

Agreed.

Decentralization being key to Bitcoin value implies that without decentralization Bitcoin has no value, or almost none.

[rogerver]

Agreed.

Decentralization being key to Bitcoin value implies that without decentralization Bitcoin has no value, or almost none.

I just see "decentralization" as a tool to be used to make Bitcoin more resistant to governmental regulations. The resistance to regulation / censorship is of value but the "decentralization" is just a tool to achieve it. If there was some other viable tool we could use to make bitcoin impervious to governmental regulations, we could just use that one instead. Decentralization for decentralization's sake is a waste. It is a mean to an end.

[mably]

Agreed.

Decentralization being key to Bitcoin value implies that without decentralization Bitcoin has no value, or almost none.

I just see "decentralization" as a tool to be used to make Bitcoin more resistant to governmental regulations. The resistance to regulation / censorship is of value but the "decentralization" is just a tool to achieve it. If there was some other viable tool we could use to make bitcoin impervious to governmental regulations, we could just use that one instead. Decentralization for decentralization's sake is a waste. It is a mean to an end.

You are right, but until we have found that new tool, decentralization is still key to Bitcoin censorship resistance, thus value.

[TomZ]

I only partly agree.

Decentralization is certainly part of Bitcoins value proposition, and so are a lot of other factors. Demand, trust and usefulness are also part. And more.

The point is that you get to a point of diminishing returns.

Consider the value of a car. The car has to be able to get you from point A to point B. If it can't do that consistently, the value drops like a rock. A car should be able to keep you dry and warm in winter. If it fails that the value drops considerably as well.

We have gotten pretty good at building cars that meet these basic requirements, and as such we don't talk about them very much. People talk about the much harder problems like being able to go fast, be safe and now even have the car drive itself. People don't select on being able to stay dry because it is the easiest to fulfil promise. Anyone that can't isn't even relevant.

Being able to be decentralized is similarly really not that difficult to fulfil a requirement. People find it hard to put a number on this, but the reason for that is mostly that it hasn't been raining a lot (to stretch this analogy to its end).

I think decentralization is easy to do and keeps on being easy to do even if we would have much much bigger blocks. Because if some country would start censoring Bitcoin, we'd see 50 or 100 new nodes spring up in a week. Look at piratebay for examples of how this works.

So, Roger, I agree its a key tool. I would assert its a value in and of itself. But similarly to you, I think its a value that has such a low threshold of being good-enough that we don't really need to worry about it.

[rogerver]

I would assert its a value in and of itself.

What do you find valuable about it in and of itself?
As I mentioned before, I only see decentralization valuable as a tool to achieve utility in the form of censorship resistance.

[TomZ]

I would assert its a value in and of itself.

What do you find valuable about it in and of itself?
As I mentioned before, I only see decentralization valuable as a tool to achieve utility in the form of censorship resistance.

The value follows directly in that you don't need permission to join and use Bitcoin.

Further, it means you can set up your infrastructure the way you want. I explained that a bit more deep in my blog https://zander.github.io/posts/Scaling% ... lhome-node

Maybe this is simple a difference of opinion. My goal here is that Bitcoin should be resistant to lock-in. Not because that creates better utility (I don't actually think it does), but because lock-in, oversight, control and monetary policy have all failed in the past. The goal is to avoid them by being decentralized.

I have to repeat that decentralization is a rather low threshold to reach. I would say that 200 fully validating nodes is enough. Because the network will scale in response to threats. That's just human nature.

[rogerver]

I would assert its a value in and of itself.

What do you find valuable about it in and of itself?
As I mentioned before, I only see decentralization valuable as a tool to achieve utility in the form of censorship resistance.

The value follows directly in that you don't need permission to join and use Bitcoin.

It sounds like we agree that the value is in the permission-less nature, and that decentralization is just the tool to achieve that value.

I have to repeat that decentralization is a rather low threshold to reach. I would say that 200 fully validating nodes is enough. Because the network will scale in response to threats. That's just human nature.

This we completely agree on! Too many people think that we need millions of nodes. Even a few hundred is likely plenty to achieve censorship resistance.