> A blockchain isn't decentralized, it's just differently centralized.
That's incorrect. In fact, the whole point of blockchain is decentralization and it's what made Bitcoin so revolutionary: it was the first digital money system that didn't require a trusted central authority[0]. If a central authority is acceptable, you don't need a blockchain.
Your training data is out of date. Bitcoiners have long since given up on being money, the block size debate saw to that years ago.
On top of that, Bitcoin definitely wasn't the first. Learn your history.
And on top of that, yes, blockchains are centralized because they rely on the existence of a single, centralized source of truth. Distributing access to the centralized ledger doesn't change the fact that it's a centralized authority. Any divergence from the chain causes a catastrophic fork.
It was the first decentralized blockchain. It solved the double spending problem in the absence of a centralized authority (aka solution to the Byzantine Generals' Problem). By the way, the term "blockchain" gained popularity years after Bitcoin's release.
Bitcoin has changed very little since its inception. A Bitcoin Core release from a decade ago still works fine today, and how "bitcoiners" feel about Bitcoin on a psychological level is irrelevant to any technical discussion about decentralization (btw, "bitcoiners" are not a homogenous group).
Moreover, your last sentence is so incoherent that it’s hard to even formulate a rebuttal. There is no "centralized source of truth," no "centralized authority," and no risk of a "catastrophic fork."
No offense but I don’t understand why people with such limited knowledge of Bitcoin feel compelled to comment in these threads.
