Decentralisation has many different forms, it is very hard to reach all of them. Many of the crypto enthousiasts forget that it's all about decentralisation, they just see greed.
>Architectural (de)centralization — how many physical computers is a system made up of? How many of those computers can it tolerate breaking down at any single time?
> Political (de)centralization — how many individuals or organizations ultimately control the computers that the system is made up of?
>Logical (de)centralization— does the interface and data structures that the system presents and maintains look more like a single monolithic object, or an amorphous swarm? One simple heuristic is: if you cut the system in half, including both providers and users, will both halves continue to fully operate as independent units?
These were all written down by vitalik, it is very hard for a project to have all of these. I think only bitcoin and ethereum can really say they are decentralised on these points.
But vitalik is forgetting one important one on which bitcoin differs from ethereum, a fair distribution. Everyone had an equal chance of getting a hold of bitcoin, while ethereum had a huge premine.
This is also the reason why most projects are just moneymakers, they lack the fair distribution. Maybe only nano, but they are not succeeding on the other decentralisation factors.
i say "we" i mean anyone that isn't on the team or working on or for the project nothing can be done, vote with your money shit never works like that gresham's law except with everything ever that people collectively decide on
Jacob Brown
>i say "we" i mean anyone that isn't on the team or working on or for the project
No project with a CEO or a whole central team will ever succeed in being decentralised. But it will be hard for a new project to arise without a team, so the most logical conclusion is that bitcoin evolves to whichever protocol will be the most effective in the future. Either pow with sidechains, sharding or a whole new protocol.
Bentley Nguyen
>so the most logical conclusion is that bitcoin evolves to whichever protocol will be the most effective in the future. why most effective? won't it just be for the moon? devs could mess up somehow and it probably wouldnt matter
Chase James
Nano will make it to 100usd by mid 2020.
Leo Sanchez
>free to use >mooning again No.
Lincoln Russell
If another protocol besides pow proves to be more effective when tested by a shitcoin, there will most likely be a bitcoin fork to use it. If it works better it will gain majority hashrate, if not the pow chain continues.
Kayden Moore
thats not the kind of world we live in though
Asher Murphy
What do you mean?
Gavin Cook
its not fair or just in that way, i mean. i dont think its decided on most effective anymore, more politics unless it made miners significantly more money or am i wrong to think this? the most effective fork in future if there is one, or even now depending on who you ask might not be the one with the highest price i mean, and i'm not bagholding any of them inb4 but just that best doesnt always win
Jose Campbell
or hashrate or most shilling etc*
Kevin Stewart
NKN project Dyor...
Landon Young
>the most effective fork in future if there is one, or even now depending on who you ask might not be the one with the highest price i mean, and i'm not bagholding any of them inb4 but just that best doesnt always win
Did you not read my post, NKN is centralised on every point by vitalik and then by the point I made about fair distribution. Which means it's more centralised than amazon web services and thus useless.
We haven't seen a protocol that is more effective than POW while still being safe.
Levi Martin
Decentralized graph embedding is almost planar and only a single edge cuts two others AAAAAAAAAAAA
Why do you do this to trigger my autism?
Also buy NKN
Brayden Garcia
All I can say is, don't get chinked. And read the vitalik article, without decentralisation it's all going to waste.
Cooper Brooks
yeah but im not just talking about pow, or maybe im a retard lets say hypothetically a fork that exists today was more effective but it isn't reflected in the price or anything else because of politics or whatever else. now what? i dont think we live in a world where the best product is the most successful basically the other forks argument (vers and craigs) except minus shilling for their particular fork i guess. the devs can basically do whatever they want and it might not necessarily change anything or cause anyone to switch to another fork or version or coin etc because of lots of reasons
William Hall
>lets say hypothetically a fork that exists today was more effective but it isn't reflected in the price or anything else because of politics or whatever else. now what? i dont think we live in a world where the best product is the most successful
If a fork were to be more effective and safe than pow, it will gain traction I'm sure. There is not just one dev team on bitcoin.
My holdings are 90% btc and 10% bch, I think they're both wrong but have potential. The right way is to grow blocksize according to moores law, until second layer solutions are ready and then scale back.
Ethan White
Sorry but this graph is incorrect.
Bitcoin is NOT distributed in the way that is suggested in the graph on the right. BitCoin is a small world network where everything connects to everything else. This is what makes it robust and resistant to sybil attacks.
it might gain traction like the forks have now yeah, or more. like you say, no team will ever be decentralised so i guess i was saying you're relying on the people on the team/s (the devs?) at the end of the day and always will be, but the people on the team are people lol, 'most effective' might not be the best for the team and i'll be honest i'm just someone that buys bitcoin, i'm not a developer, how do i know if the team has made the right decision or is the most effective (for bitcoin)? i really don't, btc is bitcoin because it's 8k now and the other forks aren't. no idea if they have made a good decision or made a decision which meant bitcoin evolved into becoming the most effective bitcoin, unless it's reflected in the price or maybe hashrate because i'd probably notice that, maybe.
ok then, so maybe they haven't, ok you forked off, ok now your fork is competition and you could potentially cause me to lose my job and power so i'm going to do everything in my power to stop you from doing this obviously. from ver's perspective bitcoin is bch. from craigs its btcsv. why are they wrong? >Political (de)centralization — how many individuals or organizations ultimately control the computers that the system is made up of?
Samuel Stewart
lol
Wyatt Parker
Brainlet here.. in simple terms can someone explain the difference between decentralized and distributed networks
Ian Hughes
Just buy link and 0xbtc and be fucking rich!
Juan Martin
Both words are often used with the same meaning,
In academia, a decentralized systems is one which lacks a special entity which is in conrol (e.g. in terms of trust or power), nodes in the system employ decision locality. A decentralized system is always distributed.
Distributed: The systems spans over several different physical nodes that have distinct clocks and memory and communicate over message passing. It can be centralized or decentralized,
Bitcoin is both decentralized and distributed.
Kayden Reyes
Obsidian had a horrible distribution as well and look what happened to that project.
There is a huge reason why ODIN was launched from the ashes of that project and looked at how to release their coins to honest holders of ODN and to ensure the "foundation" only had
Adrian Butler
decentralized looks like a mess, i prefer centralized because it looks cleaner and more aesthetic
