Topic: Does People Really Care About Decentralization? - page 3. (Read 787 times)

Most reasonable people care about privacy but they don't realize how much information are weaponized against them by advertisers, government, law enforcement, etc. They'll sign up for social media apps without having any idea of what information is being datamined and permanently stored. Economic decentralization works the same way, people would much rather rely on someone, usually the government, to sustain economic activity out of ignorance to any other economic system.

Ignorance is bliss.

Mere propaganda. I have yet to encounter a cryptocurrency user that is not concerned about the whether their cryptocurrency is decentralized or not. And that's not to say that I'm only in an echo chamber of people who are die hard fans of bitcoin and its decentralized nature because everywhere I go where there is bitcoin to be discussed they always bring up bitcoin's decentralization as one of its best feature. So to me, this just looks like propaganda put out by anyone really at this point, to make the people lose interest with bitcoin's decentralization and connectively bitcoin itself by means of the bandwagon bias. Ultimately to me they may sway people into their side and antagonize bitcoin but there will always be people who are supportive of bitcoin and are for bitcoin's decentralized nature.

Understand that Rome was not built In a day, good things don't come easy, if it comes easy, then it comes common, web3 was only introduced some few years back, web3 is not yet developed to the standard which it can be fully adopted,  there are still very many security flaws in web3 that needs to be fixed before mass adoption happens.

The nutshell is that, web3 is still underdeveloped, in its current capacity, it can't handle the kind of traffick web 2 handles, take the Ethereum network as an example, when many users stated doing transactions on the Ethereum network, what happened?, the network gas fee skyrocketed to prices many users can not afford to spend as a gas fee, that caused many individuals, and projects to leave the Ethereum network for other blockchains with lesser fees, this was how bsc became a major contender in the crypto space..

If every internet user right now should all flock to web3, it is very possible that the system will collapse before our very eyes, simply because it's not matured enough to handle such traffick.

Any coins that not decentralized is not a cryptocurrency, that is my view point. Even they are classified as alternative coins but I place them under the category of CBDC. Cryptocurrency is not meant to be centralized and controlled by any authorities because the would control the coin to the extend that the coin can't grow but it will die. As awhead999 placed it, the two different are clear for every bitcoin users to understand. Bitcoin users are unknown because the project was created to be so and decentralized. I think the two are working together.

You got a point because cryptos are decentralized but some of them are not totally anonymous. Again in crypto, there are now regulations (KYC) that are being put in place. This greatly exposes the identity of the people. It's still up to us if we will comply with it or not because there are still fully decentralized sites out there which we can use.

Governments can't totally control the entire crypto world. This is why they are butthurt about it. The last thing that you said is hard. I can't imagine how can someone live or survive without those when those are essential in our life. It's okay to not submit your personal i.d online but we can not avoid it in real life.

The reason why most people use or prefer to use centralized exchanges is that they offer way more usage options and features than decentralized exchanges, and people don't only use the spot market and that's it, they want all kinds of different options and features and opportunities to maximize their earnings, people love bonuses and competitions and that's what centralized exchanges provide.

A decentralized exchange can only provide a simple spot market for spot traders and no other options or features, they don't even have a futures trading option that covers a very large amount of trades taken on a centralized exchange.

This is so true and that is why I think many people are forgetting about the fact that we are not really annoyed by centralized stuff as much as people think. I mean some people might be, and yes it is awesome that there are decentralized options and all. But that doesn't change the fact that we are not going to see centralized as bad suddenly.

It's not going to happen and I am happy about it and I will keep on investing into that. That's just how I see things and I will promote them both and I will use them both and I will like them both. People assume just because you like dex you may dislike cex or vice versa, that's not the case, I am willing to try and use both of them at the same time without a worry.

There is basically no concept of caring about decentralization or not, people tend to use whatever they get to use first, and since all centralized platforms were first fed to the public, they started using them and now they are so indulged in them that it is almost impossible to take them out of that and put them in another platform which is totally decentralized.

One more thing is the features that they offer, if we talk about exchanges, decentralized exchanges don't and can't have as many features to offer to their users as centralized exchanges can, and people will surely prefer the one which gives the more options than the one which has very limited use cases.

I always feel that those who care are definitely in the minority. Most of those who read news about privacy & security issues, those who happen to be a victim of one of those issues, and so on. Those proportions might change if awareness about privacy is increasing, plus more decentralized alternatives become available (that are not that difficult and require many setups to use). I do agree that it won't come that soon, the market is still very new, and demand in general is not that high compared to centralized alternatives.

However, I also think it is not that far off since people are being exposed to many centralized system failures recently, such as a bank run, a defunct exchange, and so on. At the end of the day, most people still value flexibility and ease of use, so until there is a very good decentralized product that fits that bill, I expect the number of people who use decentralized services to increase. Unless they are mainly dealing with fiat, which I doubt can be streamlined unless you touch KYC and AML. CMIIW.

What is an example of that? Exchanges will be the ones who need a third party to make sure they don't scam their users. Most of them have no incentive to go decentralized if they can just pay a fee every now and then to make sure they can continue their services and rake in millions of profits.

Simple Answer based on my opinion Does People Really Care About Decentralization?

Some care some doesn't care. But the point is we need a balance between centralization and Decentralization, not all gonna work or at least gonna run well with the Centralization system and Vice Versa. We need both centralization and decentralization in some way.

On Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, you have to upload your photos, these platforms aren't meant to be used anonymously. Have a look, people post photos with each-other and tag each-other, I hope you get the point what kind of platforms these websites are and how people want to use them and yes, that's definitely normal as it should be. The problem is not what you mean, the problem is that people send very private and sensitive messages, very private pictures, constantly post on their timeline where they are, what they it, where they go, i.e. describing their life in details.
While people know that social media companies analyze all of their messages, behaviors and every detail, they still do and share things they shouldn't be making it available for such a companies. This proves that people don't care about centralization, they just want service and that's all.

The same applies to cryptocurrencies. I bet, majority of crypto users don't care or don't even know the pros and cons of cryptocurrencies and the minority group of them that knows it, doesn't really care. It's used as an investment option. Look, Binance offers Futures trading, options, leveraged tokens, swap farming, DeFi Stacking, Liquidity Farming, Launchpad. There are so many options out there to try, it looks like a casino with lots of exciting games. Decentralized exchages can't offer such a diversity.

People only take alternative technologies serious when it offers them something that they need. So, one of the advantages of decentralization is that it increases your security, because centralized services are easy targets.

So if your services are under constant DoSS attacks, it might be one of the reasons why you might consider using decentralization to increase uptime .... and adoption increase under the people that understand decentralization's benefits. 

There obviously isn't a burning need for it, else blockchain technology would have taken off shortly after bitcoin was invented (or even as soon as the concept of a decentralized blockchain was thought of), but here we are years later and have big corporations adopted decentralized anything to make their businesses better?  Nope.

There's a damn good reason why you wouldn't want an immutable ledger of things, and I always think about the medical field when I'm pondering such matters.  There are security issues up the wazoo, and that's in addition to the fact that perhaps some people don't want their medical records stored indefinitely, even if not everyone gets to see them.  Plus to the average Facebook, social media-addicted person, it doesn't matter who's in charge of their data.  Even when there's a major breach, the outrage only lasts for a week or two and then their minds are glued to some other story.

I can't say I've heard much about Web 2.5 in any case.  Sounds like just another buzz-phrase that won't have any meaning come next year.

FB earns a lot on advertising, it used to be a simple social network for communication, but now it’s a big platform for selling, including, well, everything is thought out very well, people add themselves, indicate their data and interests, regarding this they are offered goods. Everything is built on the interests of the consumer society, in this case, not  a person looking for goods and advertising is looking for a consumer.

While I can appreciate the allure of liberty and self-determination, I also recognise the need for some form of oversight to maintain peace and security. Consider: without police or governments, how would we manage to keep crime at bay and keep the economy running?

Nevertheless, we must not blindly back control. It is necessary to strike a balance between the two, and to recognise that there are instances when one approach is superior to the other.

This discussion of centralization versus decentralisation is getting out of hand; let's not let it. To the contrary, we need to discover the optimal solution for each circumstance, be it a centralised or decentralised system. Being exceptionally perceptive and discovering the most effective next steps is, after all, what matters most.

I'm sure only a few people think and care about decentralization, it's proven that cryptocurrencies users are still small, many are afraid if decentralization is easily controlled by those who have capital so they can destroy assets in a short time.

There really aren't many decentralized applications. Every project has developers-that is, owners who can be pressured and who can manipulate those who are interested in the project. In addition - a project always has bottlenecks - for example, the probability of an attack of 51% 

You answered your own question, very few people care about decentralization because very few understand the costs they are paying by allowing monopolies like Facebook to have full control of their information, they do not understand that their information is valuable and they are giving it away for free, if anything Facebook should pay them to get access to their personal information, after all people should wonder about why Facebook is worth so much money when they do not seem to sell anything? That is because the product they sell is the information of the people using their platform.

In your words, you provided the logical answer to your questions. There are really two reasons why people are not interested in decentralization:
- Complete ignorance of the basics of decentralization and its benefits. This leads us to a complete lack of interest in privacy and the risks that this may cause. This ignorance is supported by centralization in order to maintain its authority, which is what makes it withstand the various obstacles.
- Centralized services are still able to provide easier and more flexible features that decentralized services cannot provide in their current development. How many decentralized applications can you count for me than a few trading platforms?

It came back to people threat modelling, some want to protect their digital privacy and some do not care. Some of them are aware of what kind of data those monopoly companies collect and what they generated themselves, but they want to simply live as conveniences as possible. if someone wants to go into the decentralized routes convenience is not exist.

Snowden shocked the world with how the US collected and spied on its citizen and also the whole internet, yet does the majority of people in many parts of the world are aware of him? And also do those who were truly cautious about it and advocated for privacy are having its significance to educate the public? My main take is some people choose the easy route, the convenient. The simple thing. Those big companies besides giving those things are cultivating the ecosystem so there is a continuity for the users themselves to engage and create anything, I'm afraid a decentralized model would not be able to compete with it.