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.
ok. lol.
and yes, we've already seen it happen numerous times - the chain can either be run by a cabal (more or less obviously centralised) or it gets destroyed.