Bitcoin network is far advanced and different from the other centralized services which are being regulated  by government, this is not their first time of failure in network, one thing that we have all been benefiting from bitcoin is a steady consistency, which we cannot have the assurance of both all the listed institutions listed from above, this is why we need to identify the importance of what bitcoin has come to serve us with in or a decentralized network, because if never for once had a network failure as with other systems and networks.

This is exactly the reason that centralization and consolidation of our network infrastructure is not a good idea in the long run.
In my estimation, it only makes sense if all you care about is to save cost and make money, it's very bad for world wide computer systems.

So bizarre. The outage even affected my ability to transfer funds between e-cash accounts. Was wondering what was going on when I got a message saying my account "could not be found."

As was astutely pointed out by OP, decentralization certainly has its benefits; especially when it comes to something as crucial as personal finances. Perhaps we'll see BTC used in more P2P business transactions in light of yesterday's events.

I think it is unfair to compare it to Bitcoin, or generally the benefits of decentralization because it would be an apple-to-orange comparison.

Firstly, this issue should have never happened, whether it concerns CrowdStrike, Apple or any centralized services. Updates that can obviously crash critical infrastructure should not have made it past QA, let alone been pushed. Likely poor CI/CD practices and this is an internal problem for them to solve. OTA updates are a necessity for enterprises because it is difficult for critical patches to be made manually by the millions of computers running it. Bugs have surfaced in Bitcoin as well and we're lucky that it was mostly handled swiftly and efficiently.

Secondly, this is an enterprise software and it probably can't be decentralized or open source. They have contracts and agreements with the various companies for providing services. Having an open codebase does nothing good for a security company to say the least.

bitcoins is reliant on core these days, which means there is increased risk of a incident of global bitcoin bug..
this is why we NEED to decentralise the node choices and decentralise whom the protocol changes are decided by

having the blockchain decentralised is not enough.. a decentralised blockchain is not the same as the current reality that we have a centralised powerhouse deciding on the protocol which controls what new blocks data should be like, what the rules should be.

an analogy is although there are global computers all of which have their own files, they are all controlled by running windows(core) as the OS(protocol) so if there is a bug in windows(core) they all get affected

we need to get devs to separate themselves from core and have different brands of full nodes wrote in different ways/languages come to a consensus of the main ruleset.. that then decide on which best rules apply and agree to a consensus of rules but have their own code to conform to the rules via different coding methods whereby if one had a bug other wont have the same bug

and no i am not talking about lite client software. im talking about full nodes being decentralised produced. whereby many teams many brands come to a consensus of rules to evade a single powerhouse changing code and causing a bug overall

That was a major failure, even though CrowdStrike has identified the issue pretty fast. The article notes that it doesn't mean that everything was fixed because customers need to take steps themselves if their devices were affected. So far, it seems credible that it was not a cyberattack, and that is reassuring.
As for Bitcoin, it wasn't impacted, but neither were any devices using Linux, of instance. My point is that it's now exactly about Bitcoin, but the point about development and decentralization that the op is making about Bitcoin is totally fair. So I'd say it's free PR for open-source code and for decentralization.

That's a lot of damage made by Crowdstrike and the BSOD that have affected the global operations of most companies that are into it, really damaging.

They will never understand this and even with that, they'd throw some argument about it and ask a question what if the internet is down? They don't realize that the entirety of everything that's reliant on the internet will be down as well.

I was (not) shocked to see that Crowdstrike is one of the partners of WEF... that must be just a ''coincidence'', since they announced cyber attacks few years ago.
And you can clearly see on their pages that all they are doing is cyberattack response services, cyberattack investigations, etc.
This event was not an accident.

Meanwhile, Bitcoin uptime is 99.989% and last downtime was 4149 days ago!
https://bitcoinuptime.com/

Thank you for giving the fairest review. I also heard this news yesterday and many people on social network X also started mocking Microsoft, centralized companies, and mentioned bitcoin. But I find that really lame and unfair.

Let's first look at the consequences of a Windows computer system crashing, causing banks, airlines, and hospitals to stop operating and causing heavy damage to the global economy. That is not something to celebrate and we should not gloat about it. Second: can bitcoin replace Microsoft's role in this incident? I guess bitcoin won't help in this case either. Because as you said, this is enterprise software and thanks to it we can solve and handle hundreds of different tasks. Everything is not simply related to transferring and sending money, so this comparison is lame.

I agree with this, but we also have to keep in mind that companies have in recent years been chipping away at QA in order to save costs - I know for one, that Microsoft is a very good example of this - updates every other week that effectively prevent certain drivers from working properly. And those don't hit the news as often, because only a small number of people get affected by them.

These security companies especially do not know exactly how the OS they are integrating into works, whether it be Windows or Linux, and because development is not synchronized with that there will inevitably be serious bugs like this that happen which cause an oops/panic/BSoD.