Quote from: ranochigo on Today at 05:40:25 PM

Most cryptocurrencies are in fact decentralized by definition, because there isn't an actual central authority that regulates it. The degree of decentralization is the point of discussion here. That has to do with how any entity is feasibly able to control Bitcoin, and the answer for that is that it is not easy. You can restrict access to it, through GFW or something similar but it isn't effective till you block it off entirely.

Even if you establish a hermit empire like NK, you don't compromise the decentralization of Bitcoin. You merely lose access to that part of consumers but it doesn't compromise the decentralization of it otherwise.

I wholly agree, I understand that the definition of decentralization is what is crucial here. I included the framework a cryptocurrency is working within and is dependent of, which is not part of the cryptocurrency itself. -Which does not mean that the cryptocurrency is failing in being decentralized. The main postulation I make in the title is in fact incorrect.

Should I change it?

Thinking a bit more about this, my ponderings are actually about the framework within which the crypto is working within and which ideas would be pointing towards possible solutions should that framework in any way break or become intentionally or accidentally limited in terms of the functionality of any blockchain technology.

I like to visualize technology that might be possible in the future, like some quantum scalar-wave communication tech that is not limited to any geographical distance and also not time-delayed like ordinary radio tech. Studying the EPR experiement, quantum entanglement and surrounding research and information strongly suggest, at least to me, that it is very much possible. It would allow for a truly peer-to-peer new "internet", and with open source community-driven hardware as well as software, we would be on the next step towards actual information freedom.

Just babbling on here haha...