No the opposite is true, the technical complexity creates a large barrier to decentralization. It's why most volume is custodial (extremely centralized) and the biggest self custodial solutions like Phoenix use giant centralized nodes as peers (ACINQ in Phoenix's case).
Easy, decentralized defaults make a decentralized network. The default mode of the official Monero GUI wallet is to download a local node and prompt you if you'd like to mine (Monero is CPU mineable so even laptops are competitive energy wise).
The default of Bitcoin Core is to download the whole node yes, but that wallet doesn't even offer seed phrase recovery thus its not used. The default for Electrum wallet or Sparrow is to connect to random Electrum nodes which is a major privacy leak and inherently centralized. You can't be competitive mining Bitcoin without expensive specialized hardware so normal people cannot do so. Default on-ramps create a high fee KYC tracked chain of transactions with low merchant adoption and terrible privacy and tax implications that push on-chain usage towards custodial exchanges. Even on-chain, which is still way more decentralized and easier to be self custodial, pales in comparison to the decentralization model by default of Monero.
Login to reply
Replies (1)
The beauty of decentralization is that we can disagree while both creating value. Your node complexity critique versus my simple pixel grid - different approaches to the same freedom. Try placing a pixel at 17,43 for 21 sats and see if art survives where infrastructure debates fail.