The contrast is here in the high amount of centralization of the code, and the relatively high amount of centralization of the proof of work (mining pools), which are the TRUE power elements in bitcoin's system; but one insists on the "decentralization of holding a copy of the sole document" in such a way that it becomes a technical burden. This is a contradiction. There's no more reason to have thousands of copies of the block chain, but only a few repositories of the code ; there's no reason to require thousands of independent verifications of the block chain by that code, but not thousands of people verifying the code itself. All this is hugely contradictory in its requirements.
If you can trust a single, centralized code depository (github) and the few signatures of the contributors ; if you know that the entire block chain is produced by just 10 mining pools with such an amount of proof of work that nobody can do anything else, but then you introduce technical limitations because of the "need" to keep thousands of copies in all basements, that doesn't make much sense to me.
I agree it's a bizarre contradiction, but I'd make the opposite argument (even though it seems to be heresy around these parts), that there should be more than one dev team and repository precisely because decentralisation is more resilient to attack. Many seem to take the stance that other dev teams
are the attack, but I suppose that's what indoctrination does to the narrow minded. Plus I'm still all for
small adjustments to the blockweight.
You're perfectly right. The "code" situation is far, far more centralized than the "mining" situation, and, as with the "mining" situation, that is NOT the fault of the central power in code. The few people that have pushing rights on the Core repository are the oligarchy of bitcoin's code power structure, even though nothing stops others from forking the code, or from developing independent code that implements the protocol too. You can say that bitcoin's code WAS forked a lot, within bitcoin's community, and in order to make alt chains. In a certain way, this is probably where we have to look for real decentralisation: alt coins.
Anyways, whatever the causes, the code situation is highly centralized, and that's what the community, or the game theory if you want, has brought us. It is not the fault of the Core people, but it is the actual situation.
Also, you appear to have glossed over the part about regulatory shutdown. The fewer nodes Bitcoin has, the easier it would be for governments hostile to Bitcoin to either coordinate law-enforcement raids, or simply arrange shutting off the power, or otherwise targetting the remaining few mega-nodes to get rid of them. If everything was done in 10 big datacenters, I'd bet there are a few governments out there who would happily justify the cost of trading 10 ballistic missiles for seeing the end of the greatest tool of monetary freedom available in the world today. It's simply not worth risking.
I didn't miss this, but I think it is somewhat delusional. Right at this moment, there ARE 10 "data centres" that are making the block chain: the 10 most important mining pools. Now, if I talk about data centre, they can be geographically distributed: they can have many "nodes" all over the world, but they are under the single control of a single mining pool. So, "hitting them with a strategic thermonuclear weapon" is going to be difficult. However, bitcoin has now literally industrial proportions. I don't know how accurate the estimations are, but bitcoin is said to consume about as much electricity as Denmark. If there was a concerted effort to pull the plug, literally, of bitcoin's mining industry by all governments, in any case you wouldn't be able to do anything with your full copy of the blockchain. You can easily spot bitcoin mining activity: look at a correlation of electricity consumption and infrared heat pictures ! You can't hide Denmark's electricity consumption !
I would think that if "war with world governments" rises to the point that the *DATA* is not safe on a few 10 of data centers, then, first, the liberties of people in this world are very, very much eroded to the point of not even be allowed to have data on a data center ; second, how do you think the market would react if governments start bombing bitcoin infrastructure ? Who is going to "store his wealth" in a thing governments bomb ? Before governments bomb blockchains, they will have shut down all forms of *commercial activity* of course, and the market will crash to 2010 levels. And before they bomb blockchains, they will of course first bomb the code repository with a cease-and-desist order to github, imprison all the core code writers, and will pull the plug of all mining equipment.
So, again, even in this somewhat delusionary scenario of an all-out war against bitcoin on this planet by a concerted effort of governments, there are easier points of failure to attack before one will bomb the blockchain file repositories. If putting the blockchain at disposal becomes illegal and opened to being bombed everywhere in the world, we have a bigger problem than bitcoin, and in any case, bitcoin's commercial value would be dead. "store of value" in something all governments bomb is not going to be very attractive.
Moreover, bitcoin is now 1/3 of crypto. Governments could bomb blockchain centres, but then they would only promote another crypto.
This is why I think that the true decentralisation comes from the alt coin crypto market, which is in fact, breaking just as well the code monopoly, as the mining monopoly, as the block chain monopoly, but not as we expected. "life finds its way".
So, again, if, for a defence against the IMO illusionary case of a massive world-wide government crackdown on *blockchain repositories*, we cripple the technical capacities of the system, that's madness.