Bitcoin's decentralised nature is not a feature, its a bug

Do people who didn't make any money off of crypto just upvote any crap Bitcoin article that has a negative connotation in the title?

Fact: There are pros and cons to decentralizing a system. Some alleged pros to the centralized system were not described in any technical detail in this article.

At last someone smarter than me, agrees with me. I've been telling people the same thing since {I didn't invest in BTC when it was $8}. :)

This seems to be a rather short-sighted view of the 2008 financial crisis. Even conceding that the bailout of the too-big-to-fail banks was a good thing and saved the economy, and that this was possible only because of the centralization that this article supports, it was this same centralization that did things such as repeal the Glass-Steagall Act that allowed for such zany behavior that led up to the crisis in the first place. So yeah, at one moment in time centralization was very beneficial. At many other moments in time before and after that, maybe it wasn't so great.

I was intrigued when I started reading this article, but then it just ended without really delivering anything. I think this could be summarized as: "I once heard about how having a centralized currency helped prevent bad things. Bitcoin is decentralized."

I was actually interested to hear a perspective of how a hypothetical centralized cryptocurrency might be superior, but the author just kind of offered an allusion and nothing else.

It’s a feature, in the same way that the decentralized nature of white collar crime is a feature. The bug is in the people who naively believe that technology changes human nature, rather than empowering it.

Those people need to be locked in a small room with an excellent library to study history for at least a year.