It's no doubt that the growing interest from the government and some institutional investors is gradually changing the narratives as regards to what purpose that Bitcoin were initially created for which is true decentralization.
With the increasing interest from the government to acquire Bitcoin any changes to the protocol to try to favour certain interest will definitely put Bitcoin security at risk as this will tend to compromise decentralization.

The problem is that, in the race for profit, what bitcoin once stood for decentralization and censorship resistance is slowly disappearing.Whether someone likes it or not, all we have left is to educate ourselves well, store our funds independently, and support tools that protect privacy, because if we don’t have that, bitcoin will no longer be an alternative to the system, but a complete part of it.

It's best if they don't. I'd rather see Bitcoin influence groups (miners, devs, node operators) split, to force all groups to work together to seek consensus on any proposed changes than to have one, small group control over the network. Also, a small group could be easily co-opted by any three-letter agency.

---

On the topic, I understand OP's concerns.
It really feels like the absolute vast majority of bitcoiners are only interested in price movements, and we hardly see any discussions on development, new ideas/proposals etc.
I remember that years ago almost every forum member would have some opinion on what Bitcoin's road map should be, i.e. during the so-called block size war. Nowadays, hardly anyone can name more than 3 active developers (if any).
Sadly, I'm no better. I haven't been following recent developments too closely. I hear that there's some ongoing drama about Bitcoin Core devs censoring people and implementing contentious changes, and that some prominent community members, i.e. Matthew Kratter started advocating for alternative Bitcoin clients, but I'm not really in the loop on that. If anyone could give me (and others) a quick rundown on the issue, or post a link to a relevant thread, that would be great.

News affect everything only in the short run.

And I don't think BTC will push forward at all if it loses its decentralization little by little. It wouldn't be BTC then.

I am happy to see someone raising this issue because I once talked about it in some of my posts, but the user of the forum seems to be careless, and I count that most people only care about the benefits of Bitcoin, while they don't care about the decentralization and privacy.

What you stated in the OP are major reasons why I never celebrate much the adoption of Bitcoin done by the institution, major investment organizations (like BlackRock, etc), and the government. After all, these groups always like to force control of things in the market they participate.

About the devs, I believe most of them care about the decentralization and privacy of Bitcoin based on what happened years ago when there was a debate over the BTC fork, which led to a split among devs, and when people like Vers went to cause chaos. But, i don't know if their enthusiasm for BTC decentralization and privacy will change if the government puts them in a condition that's unbearable for them.

I believe the major problem we have about decentralization and privacy now is with every Bitcoin holder and enthusiasts who dont priortize privacy with the inclusion of those who are switching from self-custodial holding to custodial holding, and BTC ETF investment which main concept is to treat Bitcoin like JPEG.

Yes, but the decentralization can be tarnished if individual holders who are moving to BTC ETF holdings don't stop. This is why we need every individual more than ever to prioritize self-custodial and stay away from ETF investments and things that will make it hard to operate a node.

Exactly. However, most people aren't seeing the big picture. They're blinded by greed, as BTC continues go up in price. While government and institutional support helps increase demand for the cryptocurrency (which leads to higher prices in the long run), it will only make Bitcoin more centralized. Or at least, concentrate most of the circulating supply in the hands of a few. Fortunately, network nodes and miners are out of big institutional investment companies' hands. At least for now. Let's hope they don't gain control of most of the network hashrate and nodes in the long run. Else, Bitcoin would be doomed.

Considering how institutionalization poses a huge threat towards decentralization, I'd say our only option would be to move to Monero for complete peace of mind. Litecoin is also a coin to consider. This is for the paranoid, of course. But if you're like the average person who doesn't give a damn about decentralization + censorship-resistance, using BTC or any of the centralized "shitcoins" on the market will do just fine. Many things can happen within a decade from now. So we better be prepared for the worse.

Bitcoin itself cannot do anything. Its fate is decided by whoever owns it.

Imagine that in 20 years we have a situation where almost all bitcoin is mined out, 25% of the supply is lost permanently and 10m is in the hands of large holders like nation states, blackrock, and other ETF issuers. That leaves only 5million BTC in the hands of normal holders and all the other owners will be able to just meet up the way the WEF meets. They'll decide the fate of bitcoin over dinner.

IMO the future of bitcoin is that it will be controlled. They will block transactions they don't like. It's already being discussed that coins stolen by North Korea should be tainted. Eventually they will be blocking and tainting left and right once they own a million each.

I majored in philosophy, and as the phrase about human being a political 'animal' comes from Aristotle, I'd like to make a note here. It's not about 'politics' being everywhere there's a group of people (at least, that's not how I interpret it). Humans are social, they want to communicate and do things together with others, to take part in the lives of their communities.

I do agree that most probably don't care about what is behind Bitcoin, they're here for profit. And with this expansion of Bitcoin investors, Bitcoin is becoming less of a challenge to the traditional financial system and more a part of it.

But we, as a Bitcointalk community, are also 'political animals', and through our discussions here we can help each other make more informed decisions regarding Bitcoin.
For me, Bitcoin is first and foremost a decentralized, truly independent currency. I support it on ideological grounds, and while I can't say the price isn't important (because the price reflects the purchasing power), I'd want to stick around for as long as I can, no matter the price.

Supply alone doesn't determine control on the Bitcoin blockchain. Entities like BlackRock and Strategy might buy all of the BTC, but the final decision lies in miners' and nodes' hands. Especially nodes, which are the ones that determine network consensus.

I don't envision centralized entities controlling Bitcoin, unless they also manage to run nodes and miners of their own. If that happens, it will be the end of BTC for good. 10 years (a decade) is a long time in crypto land, so anything can happen.

---

Well said. The path towards "institutionalization" of Bitcoin, is nothing more than a plan by governments and "Wall Street" to centralize Bitcoin. Developers, miners, and node operators must stand strong by resisting such entities. I sure hope developers aren't "bribed" by "Wall Street", or it will be the end of Bitcoin for good. Luckily for us, there's always a "Plan B". Thanks to Bitcoin's open source code, it's easy enough to "fork away" into a new chain. Maybe the community will fork Bitcoin and continue its legacy? One can only hope.

Most people want to make money, so they wouldn't give a damn if BTC turns centralized in the future. As long as market prices keep going up, nothing else matters. At least, good gems like Litecoin and Monero aren't "institutionalized". And I hope it stays that way forever.

Even before the government began to show interest in Bitcoin, I had already felt within me that decentralization was gradually fading away. That is the reason I created this post: Why use decentralized Bitcoin in a centralized way?. Many people gave reasons why they are still using Bitcoin in a centralized way, one of which is that people are still stuck with the traditional financial system. They don't care much about privacy; they just want to get returns from their investments.

Saying the government's interest will likely cause decentralization and privacy to fade away is like looking for an excuse to justify what we are already guilty of. In years to come, we should expect more regulations from the government through the exchanges, and we will still gladly comply because, truly, only very few really care about decentralization.