Thread
“Verifiable redundancy” is a reliability metric, not a definition of decentralization.
Decentralization is verified locally: I can join without permission, independently validate the rules, and no one can override my validation.
You cannot globally verify redundancy in Bitcoin either—private, Tor, and non-listening nodes are not enumerable. Treating unseen nodes as nonexistent would invalidate every privacy-preserving network by definition.
If your standard requires global observability, you’re not describing decentralization—you’re rejecting privacy as a design principle.
Replies (3)
Are we conflating permissionness, privacy, and decentralization into one thing?
They're related, but distinct.
Permissionlessness = anyone can participate without approval
Privacy = what you can see is hidden by design
Decentralization = no one controls consensus or can override independent verification
Monero has all three. Bitcoin has permissionlessness and decentralization, but not privacy baked in at the protocol level.
The confusion comes from treating lack of visibility as lack of decentralization. Those aren't the same thing.
Monero has thousands of nodes running globally—and that's just the ones running clearnet. Many more run behind Tor/I2P by design.
Monero is super easy to use and offers privacy pee default. A no brainer
