Average consumers don't want or need "decentralization" and never have.

The only unique benefit of Bitcoin's architecture--the blockchain architecture--is that it resists legal scrutiny by governments.

That's it. That's all it purported to do when it was invented. You can say Bitcoin and blockchain can do all kinds of other things, but so can non-blockchain architectures (like Haypenny, for instance).

Most average consumer investors don't live in the "grey market" that forces them to make sure their assets or transactions could be discovered by a legally constituted government.

Most average consumer investors do not want to tangle with their government at all. They just want to click on an investment and for that investment to go into their account.

And Bitcoin itself is less private than privacy-enhanced non-blockchain architectures because of the public ledger and chain analysis.

Today, Bitcoin is just a meme that a lot of investors invest in. There's nothing wrong with that, and it may well have a long life as a cool name people click on in their investment app (which is on a centralized database with full KYC), but that's all it is to them.

One of the reasons why most developers are now focusing on making centralized coins is because the government is also making strict regulatory laws. Achieving decentralization is now difficult since almost every transactions that require an exchange will need KYC. Maybe developers think it will be unnecessary to focus on decentralized products in a highly centralized system.

Bitcoin was also able to achieve its aims because it was the first cryptocurrency and needed limited publicity. Currently, there are tens of thousands of cryptos, so the developers have to work hard to gain some market space. This will necessitate them to form centralized communities that usually share ideas and promote the project. I also agree that the focus of many developers currently is to make a quick profit. They will do everything that stands against decentralization just to pump their coin.

We should not be caring about other projects and comparing different things with each other, for example, first of all Ethereum is not decentralized and it is almost centralized (in other words), but BTC is not centralized although good amount of BTC are being held by centralized authorities but I still think most of the BTC are in hands of individuals. I might be wrong but nodes are scattered all over the world. So, BTC is decentralized and ETH is centralized.

Speaking of the owners of the Obfuscating platform, these owners were accused of something they did not but bad actors are the ones who really misused the service for which it was not made. But the involvement of regulation is somehow good for the adoption of BTC and overall crypto but it's beneficial only in the long run now, it is affecting products and services based on BTC. The answer to your last question is, even KYC can't stop Money Laundering then what's the real point for integrating KYC, its just what most of the innocent people think KYC is for but I think its just centralized exchanges using our data for personal usage and profits somehow.

That is simply not true. Limited supply, verifiable supply, transaction finality and divided possession in a trustless manner are properties which have nothing to do with government resistance, but can only be achieved through a blockchain.

And I'd argue that many of these properties are useful for the average person. They just don't know it yet.

Might sound like a funny question, but how do you really know that gold is limited? You don't really know. You're guessing. There may be asteroids in outer space, full of gold, waiting to be found by the human species.

You clearly have overlooked "trustless". There is no money system in the world with verifiable supply in a trustless manner, apart from Bitcoin. And, as I've already said, gold's supply isn't verifiable. In fact, no money supply is verifiable, apart from Bitcoin, trustless or not.

Transaction finality, in general? Yes. Transaction finality in a trustless manner? Only blockchain systems, and physical cash.

You probably don't know, then, the meaning of the word "trustless". There is no mechanism which can provide both of us divided possession of cash in a trustless manner. We either need to trust each other that we will keep our word, or use a lawyer during the transaction process. With Bitcoin, we can create a multi-sig address, fund it, and when you want to make a transaction, you'll have to take my permission, otherwise the funds don't move.

Satoshi meant well, but unlike many people will argue, the idea of cryptocurrency still remains a growing term and knowledge today because of the success of Bitcoin.

Despite the control of government in form of regulations to make Bitcoin and exchanges bare, the idea of decentralization will always be a bleak term and only attainable by those who are well versed in Blockchain development and languages and can understand economics that they know market trends and unfavorable policies with loopholes to exploit.

Sadly, but yes, this is happening everywhere. The companies, in order to operate, need the support of the government, and the government is putting them under pressure to take KYC of their customers. I doubt that hardly any decentralized platforms are available. In many countries, crypto taxes are very high, or they have just completely banned it. The government is trying hard to break this ecosystem, but as long as P2P traders are present, I don’t think the concept of decentralization will disappear.

But what earthly benefit does that technical thing bring to consumers? Why would anybody want that?

I know you might think the answers are obvious, but once you define the term through it's uses, then you'll see the thing isn't unique at all.


Great, that's a tangible benefit.

You don't need blockchain to achieve that benefit.


Again, a benefit. But again, that can be achieve with any transactional system, and indeed, almost all transactional systems in use today work that way. If you reverse a credit card transaction, for instance, you aren't removing the original transaction from existence, you are creating a new transaction that has the net-effect of counteracting the first transaction--exactly as you would do (and is commonly done today) with Bitcoin or any other digital currency, or any other means of value transfer for that matter.

As for "trustless", that can mean a dozen different things, so the question is, why do I want "trustless" in the way you define it? And/or why is trusting the Bitcoin network and its set of miners superior to trusting other entities like a financial institution*? Again, what is the benefit to the user?

There are thousands of cryptos floating in the market today and they may have features like fast transaction which is better then Bitcoin but there is no crypto available that is truly decentralised like Bitcoin. Most of cryptos blockchain code is patent which is under the control of team and can be manipulated.  
The government greatest fear about Bitcoin is it's decentralised nature which restrict anyone from taking over it's control.