Bitcoin_101: The decentralization in bitcoin Read on my …

Bitcoin_101: The decentralization in bitcoin

Read on my blog:
https://steffenkd.de/articles/bitcoin/the_decentralization_in_bitcoin/

Read onchain:
https://ordinals.gorillapool.io/content/bc36aef15520dc000446ab2ba22d92978a64ab9b3332f7893c33148e6d12b1a6

Read here on treechat, without pictures though:
author: steffenkd
date: 04.06.2026
wordcount: ~ 3300
reading time: ~ 25 minutes
---
The decentralization in Bitcoin
---
The word "decentralization" is inflationary used in the so called bitcoin and crypto space and in my opinion is one of the most misunderstood concepts in the whole space.
You may not be aware, but Satoshi himself hasn't used the word "decentralization" even once in his whitepaper.
Since another mantra in the space is "don't trust, verify", I recommend you read [The Bitcoin Whitepaper](https://nakamotoinstitute.org/library/bitcoin/) and verify my statement yourself.
Even though I admit, that the concept of "decentralization" can be read between the lines.
So maybe, just maybe, this concept of decentralization has a somehow different meaning as it is propagated by the majority of the so called bitcoin and crypto influencers for the last decade.
In this article I try to explain what I think the concept of "decentralization" in bitcoin means.
And where its boundaries and limits are.
Decentralization in the mathematical sense
---
Centralization means that something is centered in one point.
Therefore decentralization means that something is not centered in one point but exists in at least two points.
Mathematically "central" can be expressed through the number one (1).
This automatically means, that every number greater than one (n>1) is decentralized.
For the game theoretical nature of bitcoin to play out longterm, you would need at least three (3) nodes though.
Which would set the minimal amount of nodes for bitcoin to work properly longterm at three nodes (3).
To be clear: the original bitcoin is still being rolled out and during bootstrapping even one or two nodes would suffice for some time.
But this would be a discussion of its own.
So you could write a small program which compares if the amount of nodes is equal or greater than the number two (n != 2) and returns a boolean value (0 or 1) which means its either true or false.
It is either centralized or decentralized, simple as that.
Now you could write another program which checks if several values are greater than two (n>2) and order those values either by highest to lowest or lowest to highest.
This program could check if a value is more decentralized than another.
If we would put in the numbers 144, 2, 69, 88, 369, 3, 2016 and 1845 the program would order them in the sequence 2, 3, 69, 88, 144, 369, 1845, 2016, with 2016 being more centralized than 2.
This means something is decentralized, when it is larger than the number one and that you can have different levels of decentralization.
Picture: The two structures represent opposite philosophies.
In a centralized system, every node speaks only to one hub.
Simple to control and monitor.
But that one hub is both the bottleneck, the single point of failure and the single point of potential corruption.
Take this one point down or corrupt it and the whole network collapses or can be abused.
In a decentralized network, every node can reach others via multiple paths.
Removing or corrupting any single node barely disrupts the system and the traffic just reroutes.
The trade-off is complexity: there's no one place to manage, influence, corrupt or audit everything.
The advantage and utility of decentralization
---
So decentralization means, that something exists in more than one place or in case of bitcoin, in more than two places.
This has certain effects, and introduces redundancy and backup capabilities into a system.
In a decentralized system you do not have one single point of failure, or, in case of power and control, not one single point of potential corruption.
Think about it with regards to politics, advertisement, big banks, big tech, big government, big media, lobbying and the extensive spending of tax payer money.
And about how Jeffrey Epstein has managed to corrupt many people in those positions of power.
Those are the advantages of decentralization.
You do not have one large pot of tax payers money where you only have to corrupt a few politicians or regulators to sell your useless product to the masses any longer.
Instead you would have to go from door to door to convince every citizen about the effectiveness and utility of your product, ideology or narrative.
It would be quite interesting for example, to see how many vaccinations would be sold in such a system.
Or if the citizens of two nations would actually vo…