Quote from: mrquackquack on August 30, 2024, 10:03:55 AM

Thats a question we all would like to know. Has Bitcoin been finally sold out to big businesses, corporations, investment groups and even countries?? In the last few years these things have resonated louder than ever. Investment groups buying thousands and even millions worth of Bitcoin at a time, countries even making the once comical like currency its very own currency for everyday life. So the question once again is asked... Has Bitcoin Finally Lost It's Decentralization? Let us know of your thoughts and comments on this and thanks again.

I think some of this is fights in the community of cryptocurrencies. The growing involvement of corporations, companies, and even several countries in Bitcoin definitely raises some questions as to its governance structure and what it means for the future of the network.

On one hand, the local and government interests are a violation of legitimacy and potential of Bitcoin as a store of value or as an investment asset. The companies generally increase liquidity, stability, and adoption. This would foster growth and growth in the space of cryptocurrency.

On the other hand, there are valid concerns that would tamper with the regional structure of Bitcoin. Most Bitcoins in the hands of a few large participants result in control and power, which will directly affect the network for anti-censorship and basic decentralization.

However, basic technical features and the governance structure are kept the same through a shared library and consensus mechanism. The community involvement is on a rise, though. The fundamental principles and distribution of the network remain intact. Regional nodes and miners ensure the security and integrity of the system. This keeps the basic characteristics intact.

Quote from: franky1 on September 06, 2024, 06:40:24 AM

Quote from: tranthidung on September 01, 2024, 02:26:33 PM

Quote from: m2017 on September 01, 2024, 05:59:23 AM

How many active BTC-developers are there at the moment? Probably a few dozen at most?

According to https://bitcoindevlist.com/ there are 67 Bitcoin developers listed there.

According to Bitcoin's Github, there are 947+ contributors.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

There are enough developers for Bitcoin decentralized projects and they are world class developers.

(rhetorical question)
but how many have the privilege to merge those contributors efforts, look at who moderates the path of the roadmap, look at also who force-merges their own code in, even when certain things are controversial

when you realise that most of the "contributors" are not actively in their hundreds per release but only in the dozens per release. and then learn the "contributors" (that are not the main dozen privileged set of maintainers) are generally just spell checkers and translators and not really doing any big roadmap protocol upgrading activity.. it will become clearer that things are in a hierarchy of centralised group of devs. and we need to keep an eye and scrutinise and critique their work instead of brush it under the carpet pretending its decentralised to then become complacent

It is true that while many projects-including projects in the crypto space-commit to being decentralized, the actual development and decision-making lie with a small group of administrators, which then potentially affects the direction of the project by a big margin.

In many projects, core developers hold an inordinate amount of control over the direction that the project is going to take and the influence to make binding decisions over the community at large. Centralizing that authority-even in a decentralized community-can sometimes be a transparency and inclusivity concern.

Communities need to be vigilant and carefully look at the development process for specificity in decision making, active participation of the various donor groups, and a strong system of checks and balances that would ensure projects are sound and lend themselves to social objectives. - - -

Consideration and accountability of the activities of master developers are key aspects in maintaining zoning principles. Holding an open discussion supports everyone, and it makes sure participation is duly monitored and appraised accordingly. It may help in dealing with potential imbalances and ensures more equity in the development process.