Topic: Can There Ever Be Too Much Decentralization? - page 2. (Read 286 times)

There is certainly a greater opportunity than ever before to be well-informed. The basic problem I think is human laziness. So many people are unwilling to accept that in exchange for political power (the right to vote) you have a responsibility to ensure you're well-informed.

I spend a bit of time following politics in my country. I'm no expert, but I am willing to put in some effort. But I encounter so many people who aren't bothered one iota, people whose political opinions are simple one-line regurgitations of whatever shit the tabloid newspapers are headlining with that day. No depth, no nuance, no seeing-both-sides. No understanding whatsoever. It frustrates the hell out of me.

No. When you create this book, you are becoming "another node", ie. decentralization. Even if your book is just a recompilation available elsewhere that you painstakingly did the job to put together.

In centralization, you would not be allowed to make this book in the first place, because you have no authority to do so.

Many people go to Wikipedia when starting research on subjects, but even this is voluntary, and they are not really the source of information. Its mostly compiled information. While lesser known, there are some alternatives to wikipedia, and the countless web sites where people had the urge to share just as you did.

With the media, it has gone into the hand of the masses. You no longer need go to a few networks or traditional media to find about something. In the past, if it didn't show in your local news paper, radio or television, its like it didn't exist. Today we are in the "information" age. True, there is too much of it, there is even garbage, often purposely made to increase the noise ratio so that people get manipulated or misinformed intentionally, so you can no longer "trust" anything beforehand.

Of course not everyone can be an expert on everything at the same time. Interestingly this is the same dilemma faced by "direct democracy", no representation but direct governance. Some have proposed "voluntary delegation" on certain matters you trust people more of the subject. Imagine a Stateless country, they want to make a law, the "pairlament" is actually every single citizen, they get to discuss the proposal and vote online, what will your position be? Some subjects might be easy for you but others are way out of your league.

There is however a bigger chance today than in the past, to get more informed on any subject, you can always go online and search, but of course that also means learning to steer away from the trolls and spam and get the facts from as many points of view as possible to have some informed decision.

There was no chance to do this in the past, you might get some limited and outdated information from a local library, if you were lucky to be near one. So it goes both ways i guess, those people "had to rely on the educated" to make decisions for them. But now you could say, no thanks, I'll choose on this or that subject, perhaps on a issue by issue basis.

Yes, i know this idea by itself is polemic. There is the group that think uneducated masses could never make educated choices, and need to be "ruled" by those with proper knowledge, but even experts are not experts at everything. Heads of state often have people to advise them, not necessarily the best, but the ones they "trust" more...

And some are even worse, they now nothing but think they know all, or that the others are liars when it contradicts their dogma, its so much worse when such people happen to be in power, and cannot be removed anymore...

How so?

Yep. Somalia is the best example.

I'm not denying there are plus points and that as a theory it can be compelling. My opposition isn't a knee-jerk 'no', more of a reasoned conclusion. I've been talking with climate-deniers and flat-earthers enough on other threads to know that we shouldn't just jump to decisions without thinking about them. And I am perfectly willing to have my mind changed.

My main objection is ease of exploitation. A lot of people in positions of power, be it government or business, exploit the general population for purposes of self-interest. Inequality is growing within societies and across the globe because of this selfishness and exploitation. People in power corrupt. Not saying all people are the same, just that there is (I think, not sure if there have been studies into it) a correlation between the sort of person who wants to rise to a position of power, and the sort of person who would exploit that power.

Some systems are easier to exploit than others. Communism failed because the rulers could be as corrupt as they liked with no electorate to force them out. Capitalism has more in-built checks, but obviously is a long way from perfect. I will agree that we need a better system, but anarchism despite its potential benefits has massive potential for exploitation.

Yes I am. I can post a link to the article I wrote if anyone cares to read it.

Nice. I actually have a Taoist inspired book coming up on my to read list, called 'Trying Not To Try' by Edward Slingerland. It's about different approaches to Wu Wei.


I disagree on this. Anarchy, etymologically means 'no rulers' or without rulers. We take it for granted in our culture that you can only have rules where you have rulers. I think bitcoin disproves this. It has an order based on mathematical and cryptographic principles or rules, yet it's decentralized and operates on consensus, rather than a hierarchical command and control.

In all old-world, indigenous tribal cultures, the chief was not someone who anyone in the tribe had an obligation to obey, and was not an order giver. He was a wise counselor and he was generally, believe it or not, the 'poorest' member of the tribe, because he was a mediator, resolving conflicts and disputes so he (or she) was always giving. While materially 'poorer' by our standards, they were actually rich by their standards of respect, trust, and gratitude since everyone in the tribe was in their debt. They were rich in relationship. This is kind of a digression I know .By the way, what I've just said is not a matter of opinion, it's extensively documented and the foremost cultural anthropologist has said that as a matter of the historical record "there can be no room for doubt" about the anarchic nature of these societies. I don't have the full quote or text in front of me but can dig it up if you'd like. 

I also don't see order and freedom as duality, I would say freedom and security. People believe that order comes about through security, and that in my opinion is the greatest non-sequitur of our age, possibly of the human condition en toto. If you think about it, the desire for security is a form of attachment, which is a product of fear. Fear is good in some cases as it alerts us to danger and helps keep us safe. But I don't mean being afraid of a tiger, or fear of getting mugged walking down a dark alley. I mean psychological attachments and fears, such as "what will I do if my wife/husband leaves me?" that creates a desire to control (attachment to outcome) and this is in fact the root of all disorder, not freedom. 

Excellent replies, especially like what some of you pointed out about writing a guide not really fitting the example of centralization, since it's not forced and more of a collection other decentralized sources. That I hadn't considered enough.


I think you have it twisted. Society is at a disadvantage now, due to the Leviathon State, and in this case 'crisis' for the state is analogous to crisis for a dragon when you come to slay it.

Why would you think anarchy implies chaos?  
I would advise you to check this section
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Historical_precedents


@OP
Are you talking about the alleged dangers of 5G and the harm you think a lot of decentralized towers would do?
It really matters what is going to be decentralized or centralized.

Yes, there can be too much decentralisation. There is a word for a world where everything is decentralised: anarchy.
Full decentralisation is exactly the definition of anarchy. If we get rid of all centralisation, we get rid of all order in the world. All that is left is chaos.

Wow, excellent post, I am a strong believer in the ancient Chinese philosophy of the "TAO", an ancient belief that life is divided between a duality of sorts. A principle that in short provides a basic understanding of the universe. In this belief, it is thought that the universe is comprised of dual principles, that being, the Yin and the Yang. It could also be interpreted as good and evil, positive and negative, light and dark, etc. In other words, everything in existence has an existential polar opposite. So to answer your question, yes, I personally believe that to much decentralization is a terrible thing.
   Order without freedom is tyranny & freedom without order is anarchy. So, to much "decentralization" is anarchy, while to much centralization (order) is tyranny. So, I believe that in the pecking order of life, there must be an equal balance of both. I think that if Bitcoin (decentralized) weren't able to be converted to fiat (centralized), it would fall flat on it's face. Instead there needs to be a natural balance and co-existence of both. "Just a theory of mine, please take it with a grain of salt."

Just my two cents brother/sister/whatever

They preferred unlimited supply of money so that they can print paper money anytime. US will never allow fully decentralization, They have gigantic debts to China and they need to print fiat out of nowhere
just to pay it. But there is also some disadvantage on being too much decentralized. Many tax payer will try to evade tax payment which might result to crisis for a state. And many illegal transaction will be operate
freely just like selling illegal drugs, weapons and many more.

It won't ever be too much decentralization which we cannot handle.
And this is going to happen because governments are not going to allow so many levels of decentralization. The want to have control over things and even among blockchains they are going to force control over them.

Centralization is ok as long as it gives people a choice. You created your own guide that you think is centralized, but IMO it's only compiled. The difference is that centralization is not the same as gathering. When you centralize things you put it under a set of rules or a single authority. Like centralizing phone owners is connecting them to the same operator and making them all pay the same amount of money and receive the same service. Writing a phone book where all their numbers are is not centralization.
Making a book or a guide is giving people another option. You make a guide and someone else makes a guide. Now we can choose one of the guides or look for ourselves.

Yes. There without a doubt can be.

There has been many articles written about this sort of thing, studies, and so on and so forth. Take this recent quote from HackerNoon:


It also highly depends on what you're decentralizing. If it's something like a currency like Bitcoin -- great. But if you are to want an online forum, like bitcointalk, to be decentralized, you run into issues when it comes to moderation.

So -- this question highly depends on what we're talking about decentralizing.

not everything needs to be one or the other. infact by you writing a book you are not centralising anything. you personally did not invent the information you are instead hopefully going to shoort cut the investigation time down so people can find the information that you found in less time.

take for instance whitepapers. though a summary statement might seem central. it still contains the reference material which is decentralised by different sources
a completely central ebook would have no reference sourcs no independant pathway to allow people to check what you say has validity and all the ebook would contain would be purely your rambling thoughts using no outside information

lets take media/medical information
it doesnt just have to come from a news studio/hospital(central), nor does it require every individual to independantly investigate every word
instead those who love investigating can check if a media/medical information has an actual source,  check if the source vs the summary quote resemble each other and then other independant investigators can do th same. and when a medical/media information appears in public it can have a 'peer review' rating score that shows how accurate it is how bias it is, how open to mis-interpretation it could have, how detailed or lack of detail it has, and such.

that way if rival medical/media outlets wanted to release a version of their own which is peer reviewed those who do not know better can see the review and understand which outlet has more merit, thus saving the non investigative person time while still able to know which version is more believable or not

In the field of blockchain and cryptocurrency, of course a key focus or principle is that of decentralization. This has positive implications and immense value since the current nature of the global economic system is one of all the power being highly centralized and concentrated in the hands of the few, e.g. central bankers.  

Being participants in the blockchain and crypto industries, we are caught up in the zeitgeist of decentralization which is not a bad thing, but a couple things recently got me wondering about whether decentralization is always useful and more beneficial than something being centralized, or at the least whether there can be a balance between these poles.

These personal incidents were both to do with find and organize information. The first is, I was recently trying to gather info for an article I was writing for a community newsletter about potential dangers and negative impacts of 5G technology. What I realized is that, as someone who was trying to learn about and make sense of this topic enough to understand and write about it, I found there are hundreds of grassroots websites I had to sift through to find what I conceived as the best sources of information, or the most authoritative in terms of accuracy, credibility, etc. I think this is a consequence of how we cannot really rely on experts any longer, because we see that the so-called 'experts' are often people who abuse their authority to mislead or lie to the public and present false information. Because this is happening across the board in so many different domains, e.g. health, politics, education, etc. it is as though in order to really find the truth of anything we each have to become our own experts and authority on every subject, to the extent that we can. This presents obvious challenges as there is simply not enough time in the day, so at some point it seems we have to rely on our judgement of the source of information, but at the end of the day even this does not fully suffice if you really want to find out the truth of something you simply have to go the distance to understand it for yourself. I'm kind of rambling now, and realize this is getting pretty philosophical.

The other instance that get me wondering is sort of the inverse. I had a health issue a couple years ago, that because I found I could not rely on the medical establishment or doctors fully, I had to delve deep to learn everything I could about this situation. It is similar to the learning about 5G I described, in that I found I had to consult hundreds of sources in order to become my own authority on the subject. Because of that experience, I concluded it could be a great help to others dealing with the same health issue if I were to write an ebook to serve as a complete and comprehensive guide to all I had learned about the subject, since such a thorough guide does not yet exist or I would have found it. There is currently no single place one can go to in order to get all of the information I amassed, in one place.  So really what I am seeking to do, is to centralize that information, as I think that not everyone has the luxury of spending the crazy amount of time I took to gather and make sense of all this info (it was not really a luxury I had either, but I was forced to do it for sake of my health and sanity).  So what am I doing in creating that ebook if not centralization?  

I haven't really contemplated it much further yet, but thought I'd pose the question here. Is there a place for centralization as well as decentralization? Is it good in some domains of life or technology to have a balance, or are there cases where one or the other is clearly superior? Or is it that people just need to be free to decide for themselves how to organize and could choose either? Really a very open question, so feel free to reframe or add to it. What are your thoughts?