Bitcoin is a decentralized thing, but it is frightened by a few farts from American politicians, and its price keeps rising and falling every day. It is really ironic.
I do not understand how BTC, being decentralized, can be so easily affected by bad news and experience a significant drop in value. If BTC is truly not under the authority or control of any country or group, it is puzzling how it can be influenced by negative events or information.
The concept of decentralization implies that no single entity should have the power to sway its market behavior drastically, yet it seems susceptible to market fluctuations triggered by unfavorable news. This raises questions about the extent of its decentralization and whether external factors can still have a substantial impact on its valuation.
The dumping of BTC after any small bad news shows that it is not truly decentralized, as it suggests that someone, or perhaps a group or even a country, is behind it and manipulating its value. This pattern of behavior raises concerns about the extent to which BTC is genuinely free from centralized control or influence. Despite being marketed as a decentralized asset, the way its value can plummet in response to even minor negative developments implies that there are powerful forces at play, possibly working behind the scenes to manipulate its price.
This is just my observation, and I'm not entirely certain that my views are 100 percent correct. I simply feel this way, both from my hard analysis and from the easy observations I've made over time.
If I am not wrong, then how is BTC linked with the war while, on the other side, the rates of the dollar and gold remain stable? It seems puzzling that BTC, which is supposed to operate independently of geopolitical events, can be so strongly affected by conflicts or wars.
In contrast, traditional assets like the dollar and gold, which are often directly influenced by global events, sometimes remain relatively stable even during periods of conflict. This raises questions about BTC's susceptibility to external pressures and whether it is truly insulated from such global issues. If BTC is indeed linked to war or geopolitical tensions, it contradicts the idea of it being an independent and decentralized asset.
These were some of the doubts that obligated me to think that BTC is not a decentralized coin. Despite the common belief that Bitcoin operates independently and without the control of any centralized authority, these observations and patterns lead me to question that notion. The fact that BTC reacts so sensitively to bad news,
Geopolitical events and other external influences suggest that there may be some centralization or manipulation at play.
It makes me wonder if there are entities or groups with significant influence over its market behavior, which contradicts the foundational principle of decentralization. Thus, I find myself compelled to consider the possibility that BTC might, in some way, be centralized, or at least subject to influences that undermine its decentralized nature.
The content I shared with you guys is based on my education and knowledge. I wish you people will appreciate this post and reblog if you like it. Thanks for sticking till the end.
I also doubt Bitcoin's decentralization considering that two mining pools control greater than 50% of the hash rate (AntPool & Foundry USA), and a large pool (f2pool) was recently caught censoring transactions. The ETFs aren't helping either.