At the end of Tuesday's article, a reader commented on the following issue: "The initial intention of cryptocurrencies, which evolved from Bitcoin created by Satoshi Nakamoto, was decentralization, avoiding the manipulation risks brought by centralized governments and markets... However, as the industry has progressed, the entire crypto industry has begun to accept regulation from the centralized world. I personally feel that this is fundamentally contrary to Satoshi Nakamoto's decentralized ideals..." This question has been, is, and will continue to be a perennial topic in the crypto ecosystem. To share perspectives on this issue, I believe a crucial starting point is: how exactly should we understand "decentralization"? Different people's understandings of "decentralization" will lead to drastically different understandings of Bitcoin and the crypto ecosystem as a whole. These differing understandings often result in significant disagreements and heated debates on this issue. Here, I tend to believe that there is no right or wrong viewpoint, but rather the starting point from which we understand "decentralization." My logic is very basic: we understand "decentralization" from Satoshi Nakamoto's white paper because it represents his most complete, comprehensive, authoritative, and verifiable ideas. In Satoshi Nakamoto's white paper, he didn't discuss Bitcoin price manipulation, Bitcoin position manipulation, or Bitcoin regulation. Instead, he focused on a very basic technical question: Is there a technological means to enable people to transfer funds online without relying on a centralized institution? In other words, is there a technological means to solve the single point of failure problem that is difficult to solve in the existing internet architecture? Everything he did revolved around this technical question. Therefore, in my understanding, Satoshi Nakamoto's concept of "decentralization" is purely a technical issue. Thus, when commenting on whether Bitcoin is still "decentralized," I don't know what standards others use, but my primary standard will always be the judgment criteria described by Satoshi Nakamoto in the white paper. Returning to reality, if we still use the purely technical standards Satoshi Nakamoto outlined in the white paper to judge Bitcoin today: Does it rely on a centralized institution (such as a bank, international organization, or company) to facilitate transactions? Or, in other words, if any centralized institution or organization ceases to exist/goes bankrupt/goes offline, would transactions on the Bitcoin network become impossible? I think the answer is clear: It doesn't depend on anything. Even if any organization or centralized institution collapses, the Bitcoin network will still function normally. We can also say that even if World War III were to break out on Earth and the internet were to fail, fortunately we would still have Bitcoin nodes operating in space, freely roaming the earth, so the Bitcoin network would still function normally. Before Bitcoin, there was no precedent for such a network in human society. Therefore, from this perspective, Bitcoin's "decentralization" can be considered successful and continues to strengthen. However, in reality (including within the crypto ecosystem), most participants do not understand "decentralization" as Satoshi Nakamoto defined it in the white paper. Many people have a very broad understanding of "decentralization," encompassing many sensitive ideas and logics. In my opinion, this is perfectly normal. This is a natural consequence of every technological advancement in human history—a natural consequence of rethinking and redefining philosophy, politics, and the humanities. If we were to share more about these broader, more nuanced ideas, it would take more than a few articles to explain. Here, I'll only share one core point of view. Long-time readers know that I've said this more than once: The future of the crypto ecosystem lies in Ethereum. However, in previous articles, whenever I shared this viewpoint, my focus was on economic aspects such as price, value, and economic models. Actually, I have another viewpoint that I haven't mentioned in previous articles: "The future of the crypto ecosystem lies in Ethereum" refers not only to economic value but also to people's thinking about the broader implications of "decentralization." However, because this previously unmentioned viewpoint is more radical, I haven't shared it in detail. After all, many of my readers find even my statement that "Bitcoin, at least for now, is not digital gold, but a special kind of digital collectible" difficult to accept, let alone my more radical viewpoint. Let's take it slow, there's no rush. Let time unfold and verify things step by step.
Alex
Kikyo
Hui Xin
Brian