Topic: Decentralized System Disadvantages - page 3. (Read 676 times)

What ever has an advantage also have it disadvantage and blockchain and the decentralized system is not an exception to this fact, since decentralization make it impossible for any transactions carried put under it untraceable it then make it clear that any mistake done can never be undone in the decentralized network.

Decentralized systems with skillfully created architecture don’t work well with a small number of participants. If there are a large number of nodes and network participants, then the reliability of such systems only increases. Existing problems with Bitcoin are caused by its small distribution and the possibility of large players to carry out manipulations.

the fact that you just can't keep track of the scammers who stole your money. This is a huge disadvantage of this technology.

  In decentralization and centralization there are advantages and disadvantages there is a chance  to misuse the power  in centralization and in decentralized one the communication flow will be free and open, decision making will be slow in centralized and in decentralized one decision making will be faster; and the decision making will be only on the top management in centralized system and in decentralized means there is multiple persons to make decisions . The biggest draw backs in decentralized business is that if the person is not experienced or not trained then the business may be harmed In decentralized one there will be a chance for unhealthy competition and will be lack of co-operation .As a whole if we analysis about decentralization it will not be always a good strategy but the disadvantages of decentralization can be controlled by the degree of authority . Even though both centralized and decentralized have extremes that can be avoided and in Bitcoin transactions decentralization is a good strategy.

that's when there is no control so anyone can do anything here. decentralization can be a disadvantage if it is used for illegal
purposes, but I think centralization also has disadvantages, so there is nothing perfect here..

When you use centralized systems, you can look upon to that centralized entity in case you make mistake, example - bank frauds. In decentralized systems it's not possible, you are on mercy of receiver if you make mistake.

i think the disadvatage of bitcoin and cryptocurency with decetralized system, is its hard to makes legal in evey country because it dont have the central like the other bank and e currency system that we know right now

allowing more transactions in. takes pressure off the mempool
also if a fee priority is put in place where by a user spending more often pays more. then spam decreases
meaning people dont just make transactions for the sake of it (mixers/tumblers/de-tainters) or who just run their coins through just for the sake of running coins through (spam up mempools)

so seeing a reduction in people spamming the network with bloated transactions, spending every 1confirm will become something rarely seen. allowing for others to transact easier and cheaper.

I agreed with what you said because the decentralized in nature of bitcoin was what causes the fork of bitcoin network which lead to the birth of BCH,BTG etc. However, I believe one of the disadvantage decentralized system of crypto currency is not been endorse/supported by the government and I also believe been decentralized of bitcoin was the reason why the government are the number enemy of bitcoin because they see it as a threat to their power.

There many disadvantage of decentralized system but those the affect the crypto currency community are the people choosing side which literally lead to fork of coin, people abusing the decentralized technology by using to make illegal transaction and creating of fake ICOs which is currently happening through ETH smart contract but ETH are not to be blame though.

At the moment it is a major problem until the limit to the code is altered. But my fear is that, if it's altered and scalability sets in, what then happen to transaction charges, do you think it would increase or.decrease?

I think it's an advantage myself. Every time it happens and fails, and all of them will fail at least in the sense that they'll never usurp what they sprang from, it makes the original stronger and reminds people why consensus is the only thing worth bothering with. If you want to buck it, expect to get bucked yourself.

The redundancy required to make Bitcoin decentralized also makes it quite inefficient when compared to centralized databases. Many distributed nodes need to propagate and store the same data. This entails large bandwidth and storage costs for each node, which wouldn't be necessary in a centralized system.

Everything in this world has their own advantage and disadvantages.
The bad side of this might be from the government and they have no control on it.
That is why until now BTC can't have the ETF it wants from many government.

that is not a problem of decentralisation. that is a problem of a centralised group deciding not to change the code that has put limits in to prevent scaling.

blockchains can scale if you alter the limits imposed

Currently, the main disadvantages of decentralized systems are low transaction throughput and poor scalability. These problems inhibit the development of decentralized systems.

^
is like saying: "it seems high fee's are ok because the rich dont mind them"

that there is the mindset of excusing the issue because it favours the rich of developed countries.
think about the 5 billion people NOT in the rich/developed countries

then you might understand.
though i personally am a white brit. i can see the impact fe's have on multiple countries because i actually went and visited countries. when thinking of decentralisation its best to think about others. not just a typical rich wall street american

imagine a country where 25cents/pence was 5 hours labour for a dozen countries
saying 25cents is acceptable is ruling out the desires of a dozen countries
saying $1 is cheap is ruling out several dozen countries desires

if the rich want to pay more because its still cheaper than other methods. then they should pay more

EG bring back a fee priority mechanism
fee =
total sats=(bytes + (total input value/1000))*(144 - confirms of inputs)

this formula would make it so that
1. if someone was to spam the network everyblock(1confirm resend) they pay 143 times more than someone that only spends once a day.
2. those that send more, pay more.. they can all afford 0.1%
3. if someone had a bloated tx of 2.5kb vs someone with only 250bytes the bloater pays 10x more for the 10x space they consume

disadvantages:
1. people:
when people think a network is decentralised, they get stuck in the mindset that even if centralisation happens and the rest of the network is just distributed. they still think its 'decentralised'. which then makes it harder to actually redecentralise the network because the central power will just force the decentralists off the network, using the distributed sheep that dont realise they are following centralisation.
(distributed and decentralised are two different things)

2. organisation:
when a centralised group forms or a attack occurs.. trying to convince distributed people which is the right or wrong path, action to follow is not straight forward. a well paid development group with $100m to throw around and code things that bypass individual voting/revokes individual decentralised 'vote' power. leaving the network as 'distributed' not decentralised.

3. excuses:
anyone coding new rules can use the 'decentralised' argument as an excuse to ignore communities needs and say even when there is a consensus of the community, that the developers dont need to follow the consensus because of whatever excuse they can find that consensus is wrong and they are right. thus bypassing consensus to get what the developers want as new rules rather than the communities compromises and commitments to get to a fair majority consensus, by which time the community are just left as distributed compatibility non voters or thrown off the network when people oppose centralist decisions.

basically if decentralisation gets diluted too much it then becomes easy to over power the 'individual' to then centralise the network

Centralized governments still face competition. They face competition from the opposing political party.

People already mentioned decision-making, lawsuits and transaction fees as the main disadvantages. I agree with the first two, but I am not sure about the third one, because transaction fees for high sums are definitely cheaper than with any fiat if you use bitcoin. Transaction speed - now, that's kind of a disadvantage, but of blockchain, rather than any decentralized system (DAG is a good counterexample. In theory, at least). However, if we compare the speed with swift transfers, then blockchain is faster. What I think is a disadvantage is lack of responsibility. If people lose their money due to some bugs in the technology, nobody is really responsible for refunds. And I don't think this kind of problem can be solved, but I guess it's something we can live with.