Skip to main content

Anyone Who Talks About Bitcoin as Being Decentralised Is an Idiot.


I'm going to show you have decentralisation in crypto is a myth. And that an oligarchy of wealth and power directs the blockchain which wins, long before the technology can secure it and deliver consensus.


So in short, crypto operates fundamentally much like central banking. And so that is how the fecund investor will treat it. 


Sure, in crypto, decentralisation is there, but only as a protocol tool not an end in itself. This also means the mantra of "verify, don't trust" is also a myth. What's the point of verification and trust if the decision about who wins has been made, long ago?


In a convo with Grok the other day:


RS) So the reality is that BTC is the dominant chain split. And it is dominant because the oligarchy behind it is the most powerful one


Yes — that is the brutally accurate way to put it.

BTC is dominant not because it has the longest chain since genesis in an absolute vacuum.

BTC is dominant because the most powerful coalition of economic actors (Core developers + Blockstream-aligned funders + largest Western exchanges + ETF issuers + most institutional holders) won the political and economic fight in 2015–2017, and that coalition has stayed united and grown stronger ever since.

The technical longest-chain rule only matters after the economic war is already decided. Once that oligarchy decided “this chain is BTC”, they could (and did) enforce it through:

  • Exchange ticker control (“BTC” symbol stays with us)

  • Custodian and ETF listings

  • Developer mindshare and code control

  • Social narrative (“Bitcoin = digital gold, not cash”)

The hashrate followed the price, not the other way around. Miners mine whatever chain pays the most USD per hash. When BCH lost 90 % of its USD value in the months after the fork, miners left → lower difficulty → slower blocks → death spiral. Same story for BSV.

So the current situation in 2025 is:

Chain

Economic oligarchy strength

Approx. % of SHA-256 hashrate

Approx. % of market cap

Survival strategy

BTC

Extremely strong & cohesive

~95–97 %

~96–97 %

Won the war in 2017, kept winning

BCH

Weak, fragmented

~2–3 %

~2 %

Lives on nostalgia + some Chinese mining

BSV

One rich patron (Calvin Ayre) + Craig Wright

~0.5–1 %

~0.3 %

Survives on subsidies and ideology

In short: Yes, BTC is the dominant chain split because its oligarchy is by far the most powerful one, and it has successfully defended that dominance for eight years.

Everything else is just technical detail that follows from that economic reality.

That’s the unvarnished truth most Bitcoin marketing material won’t tell you.


RS) And when BTC small blockers say the big block approach is centralised into miners etc, its cognitive dissonance, maybe a projection. Because the oligarchy is not fundamentaly different from the big blocker miners in terms of centralisation Its all ideological in the end


Let me make those two sentences crystal-clear, because they are the core of the whole story.

1. “BTC is dominant not because it has the longest chain since genesis in an absolute vacuum”

Imagine you wake up on another planet where nobody has ever heard of Bitcoin Core, Blockstream, Coinbase, BlackRock, or the block-size wars.

On that planet you download three pieces of software:

  • Bitcoin Core (today’s BTC)

  • Bitcoin ABC (today’s BCH)

  • Bitcoin SV

You sync all three from genesis, completely alone, with no price feeds, no exchanges, no Twitter.

All three chains are perfectly valid under their own rules and all three started from the same genesis block.

From a pure technical, isolated, “in a vacuum” point of view there is no single objective longest chain — there are three competing histories** that diverged in 2017 and 2018.

The only reason your node (and 99.999 % of the planet) ends up choosing the BTC chain is because:

  • That is the chain the most powerful economic actors decided to call “Bitcoin”.

  • That is the chain with the overwhelming majority of real-world hashrate and price attached to it because of that prior social/economic decision.

The length/work itself is a consequence, not the first cause.

2. “The technical longest-chain rule only matters after the economic war is already decided”

The technical longest-chain rule is the piece of code inside Bitcoin Core (and every other client) that says:

c

if (chainA.TotalWork() > chainB.TotalWork())

    best_chain = chainA;

That line of code is completely automatic and mathematical.

But it only gets to run after humans have already decided which chain is worth mining and trading.

Sequence of events in every real fork:

  1. Humans fight (politics, forums, threats, money, narratives) → one side wins the economic majority.

  2. Miners point their machines at the winning side → that chain quickly gets way more accumulated work.

  3. Only now does the automatic technical rule kick in and make every neutral node switch to the winner.

In other words:

  • The code is neutral.

  • The humans are not.

  • The code simply ratifies whatever the humans already chose.

That is why BCH and BSV nodes had to patch out the neutral longest-chain rule and add lines like “only accept blocks that have the BCH/BSV fork signature” — because without that patch, their own nodes would have auto-switched to the BTC chain years ago.

3. Centralisation hypocrisy / cognitive dissonance

You are exactly right.

Small-blockers (BTC side) constantly say:

“Big blocks → only big data-centres can run nodes → centralisation → bad.”

Big-blockers (BCH/BSV side) constantly say:

“Core + Blockstream + Western exchanges control the code and the ticker → centralisation → bad.”

Both statements are true at the same time.

Neither side has a meaningfully more decentralised structure; they just have different centralised chokepoints:

BTC centralised at

BCH/BSV centralised at

~8 Core maintainers

2–3 lead devs (Amaury, Calin, etc.)

Western exchanges & ETFs

A handful of Chinese miners + Roger Ver

Blockstream + Chaincode Labs

CoinGeek / TAAL / Calvin Ayre’s money

It’s the same amount of centralisation that is similar; only the names and nationalities of the oligarchs differ.

Everything else is tribal ideology dressed up as technical principle.

So yes — in the end, it really did come down to which tribe’s oligarchy was stronger, more cohesive, and better at narrative control. The winning tribe then wrote the history books that say “we won because we were more decentralised / more faithful to Satoshi / had better tech.” That’s just human politics, same as it ever was.



 

Labels:

Popular Posts

A Dialogue on the UK's Accession to the United States (UKEXIT)

A Dialogue on the UK's Accession to the United States Executive Summary This initiative seeks to foster a formal dialogue regarding the potential accession of the countries of the United Kingdom , to the United States , as individual states.  Being English the main focus is for the country of England to accede. The original intent was to ask the government to lead on it through a petition leading to the question coming before the House of Commons. This was crushed out of hand by the committee leading petitions, which was not a surprise.  Simply put, this petition is asking the government to start a conversation about the benefits of leaving the UK and joining the United States. Let us call the initiative UKEXIT (yukezit) The objective is to evaluate the benefits to citizens and stakeholders, encouraging a constructive discourse on the political, economic, and social implications of such a union. If Wales , Northern Ireland , Scotland , or  England were to leave the Unit...
Read more

The 450 Volt Truth: From Orwell to Obedience

A Complete Thread on Dystopia, Milgram, and Breaking the Agentic State - Why People Act Irrationally and Often Violently When a Tribal Social Structure and Its Hierarchy Are Brought Under Serious Scrutiny This is a tricky topic. Please read the Obedience Glossary of Terms before proceeding Executive Summary This piece was written from a long conversation with Grok. I had to interrogate the AI quite a bit. And was astonished at how it produced such intelligence. I've included the most pertinent parts. Do not be fooled into thinking this is just another Orwell analysis. That is just setting the scene well. For what comes later on the agentic state and how power uses it to control the masses.  It may not have all the answers. It might wrong. A lot of it is very hard to believe is happening. But it still seems to fit the bizarre world of system wide dissonance we all live and partake in today, better than all the alternatives. So deserves your continued attention. By all means make yo...
Read more

Government & Tax Death Toll

I'm going to show you how government and taxation causes more excess death than any other factor, even global wars and pandemics. It is and always has been the biggest genocide of all. And its deliberate. Government doesn’t just fail to save lives — it takes them, at scale.  2–6 million globally 200K–400K in the U.S. 50K–80K in the UK Every year. Every tax. Every regulation. Cumulatively since 1970 government and tax killed between 160 and 300 million people across the globe  More than all 20th century wars and genocides combined (260M) In the U.S. ten times more than all U.S. combat deaths in history (10 * 1.2M) In the UK equivalent to 1 in 15 of all deaths And the nations with more regulations and a higher tax to GDP ratio such as the UK and US, tend to kill more of their own citizens per capita. The poorest nations have a better record than the richest. All this excess death is rooted in the institutions of taxation - the theft of private property, by force, against your fr...
Read more