There are leaders though, they're just a lot harder to see. I.e, the main leadership behind BTC decided to turn keep things as they were, but people who opposed them forked the coin into BCH. Why did the opposite not happen? Why wasn't the BCH side of the fork keeping the original name of the coin? Because they were not the main group. The same thing happens with every coin. They always have their own leaders.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The idea is that everyone is forced to abide by the same set of transparent rules.
In BTC, that means that each miner gets to vote on what version they will run.
It also means that anyone can fork the chain if they want.
mining is centralized
how is mining centralized ?
sure.
but 30% is not exactly "centralized"
there is no "king of bitcoin" who can act unilaterally
you don't have to fill out any forms or ask anyone for permission to set up your own mining rig
yeah it's not like 30% of all mining power belonging to a single person is meaningful, you are right, it's obviously my mistake. that doesn't say anything about this issue at all
I mean even if we could attribute 97% of all power to four or five people, that obviously wouldn't be centralized, amiright? because centralized means something entirely different. I realize that's the case with bitcoin because of pools, but that doesn't change anything. do you know why? this is why:
because what's reaaaaally important is how I don't have to fill out any forms if I want to mine. now it all makes sense! it's only centralized if we have to fill out forms! if we don't have to fill out forms, then it's not centralized!!
that's where the magic lies! it doesn't matter what anyone says, ever, simply because there is no form-filling involved! yeees now I see it
110%