I think we have different priorities as to what constitutes decentralization. To me, decentralization means that a few dozen oligarchs competing amongst each other have more incentive to follow the rules than to create a new system. That is, if the elites can't change the supply growth rate, then it's working.
In the long run, the main beneficiary of BTC is the 50-year-old workaholic who's number one goal in life is to get a higher number on the screen. It's a tax haven to hoard wealth safely away from the mob's demands.
We're in a transitionary period where the revolting peasants have a first-mover advantage, so for now it gives the little guy a leg up, but in the long run this is a radically unequal system of wealth distribution heavily biased in favor of "the wealthy" (high earners). The benefit to future peasants is that they get to live in system that doesn't punish success, where decisions are incentivized by what the masses actually buy on the market, not what they say they want or think would be more fair based on their feelings. So the Gini coefficient and other such Keynesian measures of "inequality" grow to absurd levels, but everyone's quality of life improves.
Bitcoin is an antidemocratic protocol. If a few large corporations are ignoring a popular proposal, but there aren't more than 21 million BTC being printed, that looks fine to me.
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.
I think we have different priorities as to what constitutes decentralization. To me, decentralization means that a few dozen oligarchs competing amongst each other have more incentive to follow the rules than to create a new system. That is, if the elites can't change the supply growth rate, then it's working.
In the long run, the main beneficiary of BTC is the 50-year-old workaholic who's number one goal in life is to get a higher number on the screen. It's a tax haven to hoard wealth safely away from the mob's demands.
We're in a transitionary period where the revolting peasants have a first-mover advantage, so for now it gives the little guy a leg up, but in the long run this is a radically unequal system of wealth distribution heavily biased in favor of "the wealthy" (high earners). The benefit to future peasants is that they get to live in system that doesn't punish success, where decisions are incentivized by what the masses actually buy on the market, not what they say they want or think would be more fair based on their feelings. So the Gini coefficient and other such Keynesian measures of "inequality" grow to absurd levels, but everyone's quality of life improves.
Bitcoin is an antidemocratic protocol. If a few large corporations are ignoring a popular proposal, but there aren't more than 21 million BTC being printed, that looks fine to me.