Yeah, yeah, I know that I'm on blockchain for more than 5 years, and still ask such questions, but really, when I see everyone talking about it, I would like to understand the real meaning of that !
Let's suppose I just joined the blockchain, I'm new here, and not even a native English speaker who doesn't understand the meaning of all English words. And I'm already not a native speaker, and I learned about this word only after joining steem.
So, the first thing I would do as a non-native speaker, is going to google and find the meaning of the word. So, it's saying :
the transfer of control of an activity or organization to several local offices or authorities rather than one single one.
I guess they meant the lack of control at all, or it should include control anyway ? They confuse me as well. I thought decentralization is when people can decide what they want, but not a few telling them what to do.
When I was new to all this, I just thought that decentralization is not letting the government involve in everything. Then I thought that decentralization not letting others tell you what to do. Maybe I was wrong, or still wrong really I don't understand.
I'm inspired to write about this after reading the post of @fervi here : Should we get rid of .....
Here is a part of the comment I left there :
I see votes based on stake not Decentralization for me. Maybe I'm wrong ? Money talks is Decentralization ? Interesting. Maybe I need to learn more.
Also, I would like to share this post : The new mayor is as bad as the old mayor. It's kind of actual by the way. Where I commented with the following :
That's why I don't like anything to be based completely on vote. It's like giving credit to the most, while others also have to have a place to be. Let's imagine 51% voted for ''punishing'' someone and 49% said no. Should the person be ''punished'' only based on that ? I think no. There should be evidences, and many other things considered. Maybe it's a hard topic to talk about, but really basing our lives only on votes could be a slippery slope.
Maybe I'm mistaken, I really don't know, those are just my crazy ideas. lol
Anyone can answer me :
What is decentralization ?
Maybe @double-u ? Or @practicalthought ? Anyone ? Maybe @world-travel-pro ?
The reason for the confusion is that so-called "decentralisation" is NOT ONE THING - indeed, it is an adjective, one has to state WHAT is being decentralised.
so-called decentralised governance = liberal democracy = rule by collusion = oligarchy
Give it up! It is the cause of confusion. Look at EVERY DPOS chain - look at EVERY POS and POW chains - all suffer the weakness of coups by collusion.
THEN what are "the people" left with?
The reason of my confusion is that some whales here seem to use the word decentralisation like politicians use democracy.
which whales?
and, exactly - it's the biggest lie in crypto - and not because it's an inherently bad idea, but because no code has ever been produced that can combat collusion - hence, one day, users wake up to find their chain hijacked - not just Steem.
Not you, but those who use the word decentralization to kind of manipulate the situation to blame the foundation. That's just an opinion, maybe I'm wrong, still learning about all this situation. That's why I'm putting all this in form of questions, and I'm not here to prove I'm right. Those are just observations, and I could be wrong, just like any human being.
lol. I asked just coz it is important to also understand motives. Wasn't a dig at you.
I have written many times about my dislike of crypto governance models. As you said above, make them democratic and hence easy to hijack - that's it. Some chains require billions of $$$, others may only take a few 100k. Same idea - buy to control. Same as using shares for corporate raids. This is why jurisdictions have rules about corporate takeovers - no such rules exist for cryptos. Hence, need to encode such rules into the chain for protection.
Yeah, I counted recently that if someone invests about $1 million in blurt it will be like about 50 million blurt, imagine such guy decide to add downvotes back here, he'll vote for the witnesses he likes, they will implement the change. He may allow censorship, and turned it into a fully centralized platform. What will be the actions of those who want the total decentralization based on proof of stake. Will they support that ? lol
Wrong use of words - it would NOT be "fully decentralised" ;-) Now you may see why the word itself is garbage. Doesn't even matter who supports what - only the numbers matter.
"decentralisation" = might is right
that's it.
do what thou wilt.
I meant fully centralized. Tired of all this. lol Edited ! lol
So, the decentralization they want, may bring a guy who'll turn it all centralized. That's a slippery slope.
Really? You trust other people? Look around the world! How is THAT working out?
You want FREEDOM, take it, it's yours - you don't need consensus for that.
Because what always happens is that consensus leads to terrible ideas being implemented - consensus does NOT guarantee your future freedom to do anything.
It's a con.
I really don't understand. Do you mean that people without leaders are lost ? I'm really trying to learn here.
Again, look around, even outside crypto. How many people believe total bollox and follow their leaders? Look at them voting back in total liars and criminals. Lost? I wish they were lost, then they might find a way. Now imagine if democracy ran in the same way - stake based. lol. Democracies have degenerated into that now, but there were periods when it was blatantly legit, eg only the landed gentry, or just male Athenian aristocrats.
Anyway, encoded tyranny seems the norm. To say that forking a chain is a form of conflict resolution is deeply naive. Imagine being thrown out of your own house by squatters - go build another house, they say!
So, you mean there is no safe house to live in ? I mean blockchain, and we can never achieve that decentralization everyone is talking about. I heard that even bitcoin is not decentralized, and it's controlled by the miners. Maybe decentralization is a myth. lol
It is the biggest myth in crypto.
Both POS and POW are prone to attacks - it just depends if somebody wants to and has the resources.
The words are easy, but the encoded rules are currently way too simple and naive to prevent collusion attacks on control and governance. So, given this obsession with the D-word, systems are being designed that end up working but horribly brittle instead of stable - and brittle is not good.
I tried to look for a video lecture I recall, but can barely remember who it was, possibly Roger Ver, that included a section on the changes that crypto systems may need to make in order to satisfy mainstream adoption - it may have been someone else - I may even find it on HDD, maybe. lol.
Maybe this part :
He answered there the questions : Is separation of Money and State possible?
Thx, tho it was a lecture with an audience. I even posted about it, so that might be the "fastest" way to find it - when I have some idle time ;-)
The point was that many of the qualities the initial pioneers of crypto thought important may not be so important after all, and especially not for the mass of people who don't care at all about how the engine works under the hood - they just have 2 or 3 pedals and a wheel. lol
What's the most important in your opinion ?
Let me know if you'll find it. I would like to watch Roger Ver talking about this topic, because I'm active in BCH community as well.
found it! different person tho ;-)
https://blurt.blog/cryptoblurt/@rycharde/measuring-the-success-of-cryptos-price-or-principle
like I said, was easier to scroll through my blog.
Wow, the guy is on odyssee : https://odysee.com/@aantonop:8