Topic: Is decentralization a uptopia? (Read 297 times)
the power of the blockchain technology is unlimited, and would achieve a totally free and self-sufficient world and each person would be independent in itself without the absurd regulations of the central entities, but regrettably governments looked at this possibility and are already getting into this world only to control it and regulate it leaving behind the idea of a decentralized world.
I believe that there needs to be political activism in addition to blockchain technology to push back against over-regulation. If the SEC and others are going to force every crypto project down the path of filing Reg-this and Reg-that, then they need to create a system that is more egalitarian, and support the filing process so it doesn't take a half a million dollars to file with the regulators.
It can also start at a more grassroots level, and without overt political activism. It can be economic activism, as it were. For instance, for those of us who have small businesses, we can support this movement right now by accepting one or more forms of crypto-currency for the goods and services that we provide. Bitcoin is probably the easiest, but as we all know there are some issues. There's no reason why it couldn't be any altcoin you find easy to use and convert.
Again, we will soon see the struggle of this, as regulators seek to shut down every exchange and put pressure on banks to sever that link between Fiat and Crypto. And tax authorities will aggressively pursue taxation. But as a business owner, it's worth it to me to put up with this struggle and accept the tokens - and thereby support projects that way. When I once again enter the consulting market later on this year, I'll be sure to accept a wide range of crypto for my services. I'll deal with the issues on the back end one way or another - even if it costs me a little money, it will be worth it to support the cause. I encourage everyone else to do the same.
It can also start at a more grassroots level, and without overt political activism. It can be economic activism, as it were. For instance, for those of us who have small businesses, we can support this movement right now by accepting one or more forms of crypto-currency for the goods and services that we provide. Bitcoin is probably the easiest, but as we all know there are some issues. There's no reason why it couldn't be any altcoin you find easy to use and convert.
Again, we will soon see the struggle of this, as regulators seek to shut down every exchange and put pressure on banks to sever that link between Fiat and Crypto. And tax authorities will aggressively pursue taxation. But as a business owner, it's worth it to me to put up with this struggle and accept the tokens - and thereby support projects that way. When I once again enter the consulting market later on this year, I'll be sure to accept a wide range of crypto for my services. I'll deal with the issues on the back end one way or another - even if it costs me a little money, it will be worth it to support the cause. I encourage everyone else to do the same.
I agree from a pragmatic perspective, the technology is not enough to enable decentralization to take place on a mass scale. I wish it were, but there are practical, real-world considerations that come into play. There's politics and there are regulators. It'd be great to say "well we can do it anyway no matter what they say", and strictly speaking, this is true. But it then becomes essentially "black market activity", which will not enable massive adoption. One of the best facets of the cryptocurrency "movement" is an escape from the control of traditional legacy finance, and it will be hard to do that without some industry-wide cooperative efforts.
I don't know financial regulation in every country though I am learning more than I expected. But one good thing in the United States is that we can use the framework put in place by the large financial interests against them and in furtherance of our own values. In the U.S., the financial services industry is one of the first (we have several others now) that were permitted to self-regulate. Self-regulatory organizations (SROs) are organizations that have been delegated authority by the SEC, etc. to create and enforce their own rules. A few months ago you'd see threads from me on here, Twitter, and Reddit talking about the need to promote best practices, voluntary standards to help demonstrate to regulators that some type of self-policing over the large frauds was getting organized. However, the Gemini twins wrote a blog a few weeks back calling for the creation of an SRO for the virtual currency industry, see: https://gemini.com/blog/a-proposal-for-a-self-regulatory-organization-for-the-u-s-virtual-currency-industry/.
So while a few months ago I was talking about standards that would be best-practices to offer to help raise the quality bar and reduce fraud, now I believe that some SROs should be created. The SEC has indicated support for this approach. That blog proposes the creation of one organization called the Virtual Currency Association (I think). I believe that there should be more than one SRO. I know that when one SRO becomes dominant in the field they end up causing consolidation and ever-increasing standards that limit the pool just as you were saying. It would be like if there was only Visa, no Mastercard. Visa would be able to charge more, change rules, etc., at will because they'd have no alternative organization to keep them in check. I've seen this with the merger that created FINRA, which is the big SRO that regulates legacy securities markets. Multiple SROs can cooperate in many ways, but it is still best to have alternatives to keep from monopolistic behavior.
I agree that compliance with the regulatory requirements should be made easy, inclusive, and inexpensive. I want innovation to keep moving the field forward, and over-regulation is one quick way to kill that. So I believe that SROs offer an answer to those challenges: controlling costs, allowing flexibility and innovation, and also enhance the stature of the industry before lawmakers, regulators, and even through education to the broader public.
So I have been seriously considering taking my plans and work for the "BTRIC Institute" part of my organization and applying those ideas towards creation of an SRO that would get established to meet all the legal requirements for recognition by the SEC and establish a framework that can be used to keep more draconian regulations in check. You must be able to reduce fraud but you do not need to make any potential token have to go through a whole SEC-1 process and create prospectus documents and all the garbage that traditional Initial Public Offerings require. The ICO as a new asset class loses much of its appeal and utility if it becomes as complicated as taking a company public. If you're going to spend that much money to raise capital, why not just list on NASDAQ or NYSE? So I believe a relaxed framework can be developed that focuses on key areas where fraud can be identified, clear technical issues reviewed (security audits, exchange businesses have procedures in place to limit losses if they're hacked, etc.).
The other side of the coin (no pun intended), is that virtual currencies I really believe are currencies and need the legal and regulatory backing as a currency. There are key differences between a currency like Bitcoin, a utility token, a security token, and unconventional cryptoassets like cryptokitties and other collectibles. Also, blockchain insurance and other crypto assets all need slightly different frameworks, but easy to comply with regulations. It is just like stocks, bonds, money, and contracts are all written on paper but are all different things. I believe an SRO can help build the case for the differentiation. The IRS should not always consider every crypto asset as a security asset, applying capital gains tax to each transaction, which they now do. That's ridiculous. An SRO that establishes a process to determine what type of cryptoasset different coins/tokens/kitties/etc. are will be in a good position to work with regulators to bring their rules in line with the realities.
I believe it's something that needs careful consideration in the immediate time-scale. SROs should get up and running in time to engage in the G20 process that's producing draft regulatory frameworks.
Best regards,
Ben
Wow - I had no idea about SRO's or any of this. I'm very interested in being a member of such an organization and I'll reach out directly to you one way or another. I have an attorney friend who might also be interested. Thanks!
I believe that there needs to be political activism in addition to blockchain technology to push back against over-regulation. If the SEC and others are going to force every crypto project down the path of filing Reg-this and Reg-that, then they need to create a system that is more egalitarian, and support the filing process so it doesn't take a half a million dollars to file with the regulators.
It can also start at a more grassroots level, and without overt political activism. It can be economic activism, as it were. For instance, for those of us who have small businesses, we can support this movement right now by accepting one or more forms of crypto-currency for the goods and services that we provide. Bitcoin is probably the easiest, but as we all know there are some issues. There's no reason why it couldn't be any altcoin you find easy to use and convert.
Again, we will soon see the struggle of this, as regulators seek to shut down every exchange and put pressure on banks to sever that link between Fiat and Crypto. And tax authorities will aggressively pursue taxation. But as a business owner, it's worth it to me to put up with this struggle and accept the tokens - and thereby support projects that way. When I once again enter the consulting market later on this year, I'll be sure to accept a wide range of crypto for my services. I'll deal with the issues on the back end one way or another - even if it costs me a little money, it will be worth it to support the cause. I encourage everyone else to do the same.
It can also start at a more grassroots level, and without overt political activism. It can be economic activism, as it were. For instance, for those of us who have small businesses, we can support this movement right now by accepting one or more forms of crypto-currency for the goods and services that we provide. Bitcoin is probably the easiest, but as we all know there are some issues. There's no reason why it couldn't be any altcoin you find easy to use and convert.
Again, we will soon see the struggle of this, as regulators seek to shut down every exchange and put pressure on banks to sever that link between Fiat and Crypto. And tax authorities will aggressively pursue taxation. But as a business owner, it's worth it to me to put up with this struggle and accept the tokens - and thereby support projects that way. When I once again enter the consulting market later on this year, I'll be sure to accept a wide range of crypto for my services. I'll deal with the issues on the back end one way or another - even if it costs me a little money, it will be worth it to support the cause. I encourage everyone else to do the same.
I agree from a pragmatic perspective, the technology is not enough to enable decentralization to take place on a mass scale. I wish it were, but there are practical, real-world considerations that come into play. There's politics and there are regulators. It'd be great to say "well we can do it anyway no matter what they say", and strictly speaking, this is true. But it then becomes essentially "black market activity", which will not enable massive adoption. One of the best facets of the cryptocurrency "movement" is an escape from the control of traditional legacy finance, and it will be hard to do that without some industry-wide cooperative efforts.
I don't know financial regulation in every country though I am learning more than I expected. But one good thing in the United States is that we can use the framework put in place by the large financial interests against them and in furtherance of our own values. In the U.S., the financial services industry is one of the first (we have several others now) that were permitted to self-regulate. Self-regulatory organizations (SROs) are organizations that have been delegated authority by the SEC, etc. to create and enforce their own rules. A few months ago you'd see threads from me on here, Twitter, and Reddit talking about the need to promote best practices, voluntary standards to help demonstrate to regulators that some type of self-policing over the large frauds was getting organized. However, the Gemini twins wrote a blog a few weeks back calling for the creation of an SRO for the virtual currency industry, see: https://gemini.com/blog/a-proposal-for-a-self-regulatory-organization-for-the-u-s-virtual-currency-industry/.
So while a few months ago I was talking about standards that would be best-practices to offer to help raise the quality bar and reduce fraud, now I believe that some SROs should be created. The SEC has indicated support for this approach. That blog proposes the creation of one organization called the Virtual Currency Association (I think). I believe that there should be more than one SRO. I know that when one SRO becomes dominant in the field they end up causing consolidation and ever-increasing standards that limit the pool just as you were saying. It would be like if there was only Visa, no Mastercard. Visa would be able to charge more, change rules, etc., at will because they'd have no alternative organization to keep them in check. I've seen this with the merger that created FINRA, which is the big SRO that regulates legacy securities markets. Multiple SROs can cooperate in many ways, but it is still best to have alternatives to keep from monopolistic behavior.
I agree that compliance with the regulatory requirements should be made easy, inclusive, and inexpensive. I want innovation to keep moving the field forward, and over-regulation is one quick way to kill that. So I believe that SROs offer an answer to those challenges: controlling costs, allowing flexibility and innovation, and also enhance the stature of the industry before lawmakers, regulators, and even through education to the broader public.
So I have been seriously considering taking my plans and work for the "BTRIC Institute" part of my organization and applying those ideas towards creation of an SRO that would get established to meet all the legal requirements for recognition by the SEC and establish a framework that can be used to keep more draconian regulations in check. You must be able to reduce fraud but you do not need to make any potential token have to go through a whole SEC-1 process and create prospectus documents and all the garbage that traditional Initial Public Offerings require. The ICO as a new asset class loses much of its appeal and utility if it becomes as complicated as taking a company public. If you're going to spend that much money to raise capital, why not just list on NASDAQ or NYSE? So I believe a relaxed framework can be developed that focuses on key areas where fraud can be identified, clear technical issues reviewed (security audits, exchange businesses have procedures in place to limit losses if they're hacked, etc.).
The other side of the coin (no pun intended), is that virtual currencies I really believe are currencies and need the legal and regulatory backing as a currency. There are key differences between a currency like Bitcoin, a utility token, a security token, and unconventional cryptoassets like cryptokitties and other collectibles. Also, blockchain insurance and other crypto assets all need slightly different frameworks, but easy to comply with regulations. It is just like stocks, bonds, money, and contracts are all written on paper but are all different things. I believe an SRO can help build the case for the differentiation. The IRS should not always consider every crypto asset as a security asset, applying capital gains tax to each transaction, which they now do. That's ridiculous. An SRO that establishes a process to determine what type of cryptoasset different coins/tokens/kitties/etc. are will be in a good position to work with regulators to bring their rules in line with the realities.
I believe it's something that needs careful consideration in the immediate time-scale. SROs should get up and running in time to engage in the G20 process that's producing draft regulatory frameworks.
Best regards,
Ben
I agree that it is an eternal struggle. And I also agree with Ben that Bitcoin proved that it could be possible and paved the way for wider use cases.
But the technology itself, I'm afraid, may not be enough, because centralized power structures will not go down easily. You can already see it with the coming force of regulation. While I agree that the regulators have a point that some people are getting scammed (or should I say 'letting themselves get scammed', since most scams are pretty obvious), and that it's important to enforce certain regulations to help prevent theft and fraud, I believe that the approach, for instance, of "Every Token is a Security" looks very much to me like a thin veneer over the dark purpose of once again consolidating power. I say this because with that approach, you greatly reduce the number of people "qualified" to participate and support projects that seek to disrupt. In this model, only those with a lot of money will be allowed to support and participate. Granted, you get some level of distribution and decentralization, but it's limited to people who have made over $200,000 per year for the last three years, or some such thing.
I believe that there needs to be political activism in addition to blockchain technology to push back against over-regulation. If the SEC and others are going to force every crypto project down the path of filing Reg-this and Reg-that, then they need to create a system that is more egalitarian, and support the filing process so it doesn't take a half a million dollars to file with the regulators.
It can also start at a more grassroots level, and without overt political activism. It can be economic activism, as it were. For instance, for those of us who have small businesses, we can support this movement right now by accepting one or more forms of crypto-currency for the goods and services that we provide. Bitcoin is probably the easiest, but as we all know there are some issues. There's no reason why it couldn't be any altcoin you find easy to use and convert.
Again, we will soon see the struggle of this, as regulators seek to shut down every exchange and put pressure on banks to sever that link between Fiat and Crypto. And tax authorities will aggressively pursue taxation. But as a business owner, it's worth it to me to put up with this struggle and accept the tokens - and thereby support projects that way. When I once again enter the consulting market later on this year, I'll be sure to accept a wide range of crypto for my services. I'll deal with the issues on the back end one way or another - even if it costs me a little money, it will be worth it to support the cause. I encourage everyone else to do the same.
But the technology itself, I'm afraid, may not be enough, because centralized power structures will not go down easily. You can already see it with the coming force of regulation. While I agree that the regulators have a point that some people are getting scammed (or should I say 'letting themselves get scammed', since most scams are pretty obvious), and that it's important to enforce certain regulations to help prevent theft and fraud, I believe that the approach, for instance, of "Every Token is a Security" looks very much to me like a thin veneer over the dark purpose of once again consolidating power. I say this because with that approach, you greatly reduce the number of people "qualified" to participate and support projects that seek to disrupt. In this model, only those with a lot of money will be allowed to support and participate. Granted, you get some level of distribution and decentralization, but it's limited to people who have made over $200,000 per year for the last three years, or some such thing.
I believe that there needs to be political activism in addition to blockchain technology to push back against over-regulation. If the SEC and others are going to force every crypto project down the path of filing Reg-this and Reg-that, then they need to create a system that is more egalitarian, and support the filing process so it doesn't take a half a million dollars to file with the regulators.
It can also start at a more grassroots level, and without overt political activism. It can be economic activism, as it were. For instance, for those of us who have small businesses, we can support this movement right now by accepting one or more forms of crypto-currency for the goods and services that we provide. Bitcoin is probably the easiest, but as we all know there are some issues. There's no reason why it couldn't be any altcoin you find easy to use and convert.
Again, we will soon see the struggle of this, as regulators seek to shut down every exchange and put pressure on banks to sever that link between Fiat and Crypto. And tax authorities will aggressively pursue taxation. But as a business owner, it's worth it to me to put up with this struggle and accept the tokens - and thereby support projects that way. When I once again enter the consulting market later on this year, I'll be sure to accept a wide range of crypto for my services. I'll deal with the issues on the back end one way or another - even if it costs me a little money, it will be worth it to support the cause. I encourage everyone else to do the same.
It is utopia, but the dreamed one. In the sense humanity and moral and kindness are utopias )
I think the people who stand to lose the most from it are the people who currently have a monopoly on finance and control. For that reason I can see it being a wobbly road to mainstream adoption full of smear campaigns and fake news. I do however believe that in the long term adoption is inevitable for some areas whereas for others, it may be unnecessary.
Recently I've been thinking, with blochckain and cryptocurrencies, the world would be wanting a more/complete transparent, secure and p2p system in everything on the earth. I think it's great. And I think, correct me if I'm wrong, the decentralization technology is in some way, making our world more democrat and liberal.
That is a great thing to hope, actually. But the total decentralization will bring a total democracy/liberty, and it's just too good to be true. I don't think any time or any country could ever achieve it (technically yes, but according to the history, humain will always find a way to destroy things for his own good).
So I think, for some reasons, the decentralization would have so much difficulty in serving all that it could, and as for cryptocurrencies it could be worse, because coins/value represent power, and humain would do the worst thing to get the control of that.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong; and I would be very happy to see that I'm wrong
That is a great thing to hope, actually. But the total decentralization will bring a total democracy/liberty, and it's just too good to be true. I don't think any time or any country could ever achieve it (technically yes, but according to the history, humain will always find a way to destroy things for his own good).
So I think, for some reasons, the decentralization would have so much difficulty in serving all that it could, and as for cryptocurrencies it could be worse, because coins/value represent power, and humain would do the worst thing to get the control of that.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong; and I would be very happy to see that I'm wrong
Hi lifeinwinter,
In my view, decentralization is the answer to so many of humanity's problems. It is not perfect, but it has some great attributes that I believe should become the base, foundational principle around which society organizes.
Decentralized technologies were around long before Bitcoin. The problem that Bitcoin solved, and what makes it a giant leap, is how to have decentralization in a trust-free model. Blockchain (and, by implication, consensus) is an astounding concept, so simple in its essence, but with such wide-reaching applications. The truly awesome thing about Bitcoin is not just the blockchain, but also that the first major use of blockchain was in decentralizing what, by far, is the most powerful construct to control, enslave, direct humanity: money. If you can decentralize money, everything else will follow. If you failed to decentralize money, the rest of it doesn't necessarily have an overall impact on improving humanity for everyone, everywhere. Satoshi and Bitcoin went after the biggest structure of power and control in the history of the world, and Satoshi and Bitcoin are winning!
There are many other what I think of as a "gatekeepers", you can find them in virtually all fields. Some of the most obvious is the media. The media controls the flow of information to the masses. 30 years ago, if I wanted to communicate with the world, unless I was one of the few to have a TV or radio show, or a newspaper column or something similar, I was screwed. The technology to convey information was there, but it was essentially a one-way street, from the few to the many. No way for the many to also communicate with the many. It's also clear that those entities, television networks, newspaper publishers, etc., exercised their power to control what we were able to learn. They "shaped" the information in such a way to portray a worldview that suited their corporate interests.
Enter the internet. The internet makes it possible for this message I am typing right now from my home in New Jersey, USA to be instantly communicated to anyone reading this page. I can go tweet about this post on Twitter if I wanted to, and it would be there, available to anyone that wanted to view it. The Internet gives us the technology to be able to communicate information of all types to anyone, anywhere.
Google, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter are examples of the power that open exchange of information enables. No more must I trust what NBC News is telling me, I can search and find 10,000 other sources of news. I can actually tweet to the newsmakers themselves if I wanted to. And they can tweet directly to me (such as the President of the USA). By bypassing traditional gatekeeper media, the Internet enables a greater variety of information sources. However, just like those TV and newspapers, these platforms are also learning that they have enormous power to shape the message.
This is why decentralization is so important. We need decentralized platforms to exchange information, platforms that have no point of control. We need resilient decentralized networks on which information freely flows from the many to the many. Once you have the free flow of information, and there is no point of gatekeeping control, the truth will win out. (It's more complicated than I'm explaining here, but this is its essence.)
In the wider financial services industry (beyond cryptocurrency itself), decentralization levels the playing field in what was always a rigged game. Properly implemented decentralized systems that are based on transactions should always have a construct, a blockchain, that eliminates cheating. In time, all financial trading will take place on such systems.
The free and open flow of information of many types (not just financial and media) can benefit from properly designed decentralized systems.
As far as the downsides, those that have lived their lives as gatekeepers, are no longer needed. They either adjust to the new reality of decentralization, or they're obsolete. All decentralized systems begin as centralized ones, to some extent. Over time, decentralization should increasing occur of the health of the system is threatened. Active efforts must be taken to ensure that centralization does not occur, sometimes this means purposely building less efficient systems to increase resilience.
The decentralization of "all the things" is a huge, earth-shattering change for those in the very elite that have been favoring "globalization", which is really quite the opposite: it's a centralization of power and control. The possibilities that decentralization places within grasp are truly amazing.
Best regards,
Ben
Thank you so much Ben for this wonderful explanation. I've learnt so much.
I'm gonna need to save what you said and read it several times
Best regards
Just today found excellent article about decentralization and web 3.0:
https://medium.com/@matteozago/why-the-net-giants-are-worried-about-the-web-3-0-44b2d3620da5
Yes, its made by member of team I promote in bounty...but I promote them because of vision
and quality insights like that article
https://medium.com/@matteozago/why-the-net-giants-are-worried-about-the-web-3-0-44b2d3620da5
Yes, its made by member of team I promote in bounty...but I promote them because of vision
and quality insights like that article
Recently I've been thinking, with blochckain and cryptocurrencies, the world would be wanting a more/complete transparent, secure and p2p system in everything on the earth. I think it's great. And I think, correct me if I'm wrong, the decentralization technology is in some way, making our world more democrat and liberal.
That is a great thing to hope, actually. But the total decentralization will bring a total democracy/liberty, and it's just too good to be true. I don't think any time or any country could ever achieve it (technically yes, but according to the history, humain will always find a way to destroy things for his own good).
So I think, for some reasons, the decentralization would have so much difficulty in serving all that it could, and as for cryptocurrencies it could be worse, because coins/value represent power, and humain would do the worst thing to get the control of that.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong; and I would be very happy to see that I'm wrong
That is a great thing to hope, actually. But the total decentralization will bring a total democracy/liberty, and it's just too good to be true. I don't think any time or any country could ever achieve it (technically yes, but according to the history, humain will always find a way to destroy things for his own good).
So I think, for some reasons, the decentralization would have so much difficulty in serving all that it could, and as for cryptocurrencies it could be worse, because coins/value represent power, and humain would do the worst thing to get the control of that.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong; and I would be very happy to see that I'm wrong
Hi lifeinwinter,
In my view, decentralization is the answer to so many of humanity's problems. It is not perfect, but it has some great attributes that I believe should become the base, foundational principle around which society organizes.
Decentralized technologies were around long before Bitcoin. The problem that Bitcoin solved, and what makes it a giant leap, is how to have decentralization in a trust-free model. Blockchain (and, by implication, consensus) is an astounding concept, so simple in its essence, but with such wide-reaching applications. The truly awesome thing about Bitcoin is not just the blockchain, but also that the first major use of blockchain was in decentralizing what, by far, is the most powerful construct to control, enslave, direct humanity: money. If you can decentralize money, everything else will follow. If you failed to decentralize money, the rest of it doesn't necessarily have an overall impact on improving humanity for everyone, everywhere. Satoshi and Bitcoin went after the biggest structure of power and control in the history of the world, and Satoshi and Bitcoin are winning!
There are many other what I think of as a "gatekeepers", you can find them in virtually all fields. Some of the most obvious is the media. The media controls the flow of information to the masses. 30 years ago, if I wanted to communicate with the world, unless I was one of the few to have a TV or radio show, or a newspaper column or something similar, I was screwed. The technology to convey information was there, but it was essentially a one-way street, from the few to the many. No way for the many to also communicate with the many. It's also clear that those entities, television networks, newspaper publishers, etc., exercised their power to control what we were able to learn. They "shaped" the information in such a way to portray a worldview that suited their corporate interests.
Enter the internet. The internet makes it possible for this message I am typing right now from my home in New Jersey, USA to be instantly communicated to anyone reading this page. I can go tweet about this post on Twitter if I wanted to, and it would be there, available to anyone that wanted to view it. The Internet gives us the technology to be able to communicate information of all types to anyone, anywhere.
Google, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter are examples of the power that open exchange of information enables. No more must I trust what NBC News is telling me, I can search and find 10,000 other sources of news. I can actually tweet to the newsmakers themselves if I wanted to. And they can tweet directly to me (such as the President of the USA). By bypassing traditional gatekeeper media, the Internet enables a greater variety of information sources. However, just like those TV and newspapers, these platforms are also learning that they have enormous power to shape the message.
This is why decentralization is so important. We need decentralized platforms to exchange information, platforms that have no point of control. We need resilient decentralized networks on which information freely flows from the many to the many. Once you have the free flow of information, and there is no point of gatekeeping control, the truth will win out. (It's more complicated than I'm explaining here, but this is its essence.)
In the wider financial services industry (beyond cryptocurrency itself), decentralization levels the playing field in what was always a rigged game. Properly implemented decentralized systems that are based on transactions should always have a construct, a blockchain, that eliminates cheating. In time, all financial trading will take place on such systems.
The free and open flow of information of many types (not just financial and media) can benefit from properly designed decentralized systems.
As far as the downsides, those that have lived their lives as gatekeepers, are no longer needed. They either adjust to the new reality of decentralization, or they're obsolete. All decentralized systems begin as centralized ones, to some extent. Over time, decentralization should increasing occur of the health of the system is threatened. Active efforts must be taken to ensure that centralization does not occur, sometimes this means purposely building less efficient systems to increase resilience.
The decentralization of "all the things" is a huge, earth-shattering change for those in the very elite that have been favoring "globalization", which is really quite the opposite: it's a centralization of power and control. The possibilities that decentralization places within grasp are truly amazing.
Best regards,
Ben
It is an eternal struggle. World will never be neither fully decentralized nor fully centralized.
Every centralized system tends to decentralize without outside influence.
In every system there are errors and some are more persistent then others.
I think it is reasonable to assume that every centralized system you see today will become more and more decentralized.
However new things get invented, new systems and structures get built and they are almost always centralized in the beginning as centralization gives lower complexity, speed and efficiency. But then trust,security and diversity come into play and they must decentralize to survive.
It is just a natural way of things, in my opinion.
Every centralized system tends to decentralize without outside influence.
In every system there are errors and some are more persistent then others.
I think it is reasonable to assume that every centralized system you see today will become more and more decentralized.
However new things get invented, new systems and structures get built and they are almost always centralized in the beginning as centralization gives lower complexity, speed and efficiency. But then trust,security and diversity come into play and they must decentralize to survive.
It is just a natural way of things, in my opinion.
I think decentralization is indeed what the current world needs. During most part of human history, decentralization was actually the dominant model because of the vastly segmented economy both in terms of demand and geography. The current centralized economy was the result of the fast industralisation of the last 300 years or so, and it has served the society well to eliminate poverty in most part of the world. However, I think it has reached its apex considering the fact of unsustainable economy/monetary policies of major economies and the disruptive effect of failed large corporations (Lehman Bro., etc.). With the fast uprising of e-commerce and more and more sub-divided consumer demands, a more decentralized economic model should at least become a good supplement of the economy even if it can't totally replace everything.
Recently I've been thinking, with blochckain and cryptocurrencies, the world would be wanting a more/complete transparent, secure and p2p system in everything on the earth. I think it's great. And I think, correct me if I'm wrong, the decentralization technology is in some way, making our world more democrat and liberal.
That is a great thing to hope, actually. But the total decentralization will bring a total democracy/liberty, and it's just too good to be true. I don't think any time or any country could ever achieve it (technically yes, but according to the history, humain will always find a way to destroy things for his own good).
So I think, for some reasons, the decentralization would have so much difficulty in serving all that it could, and as for cryptocurrencies it could be worse, because coins/value represent power, and humain would do the worst thing to get the control of that.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong; and I would be very happy to see that I'm wrong
That is a great thing to hope, actually. But the total decentralization will bring a total democracy/liberty, and it's just too good to be true. I don't think any time or any country could ever achieve it (technically yes, but according to the history, humain will always find a way to destroy things for his own good).
So I think, for some reasons, the decentralization would have so much difficulty in serving all that it could, and as for cryptocurrencies it could be worse, because coins/value represent power, and humain would do the worst thing to get the control of that.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong; and I would be very happy to see that I'm wrong
Decentralisation is linked to the economies of scale. For example, Bitcoin has progressively become less decentralised because due to its technical features, it is cheaper to set a large facility than many small or domestic sites. However, the coins that are ASIC resistant, like monero, ethereum and others do not offer a significant economic advantage when mined massively.
As far as Staking or Master node coins, centralisation occurs only if a large number of coins is required to stake or form a node. Typically that happens with Dash and NEO, but that is by design.
Now, centralisation or not does not have anything to do with democracy. Money is not managed democratically since one person is not equal to one vote in any system that I am aware of regarding the management of business (except perhaps in cooperative business).
Recently I've been thinking, with blochckain and cryptocurrencies, the world would be wanting a more/complete transparent, secure and p2p system in everything on the earth. I think it's great. And I think, correct me if I'm wrong, the decentralization technology is in some way, making our world more democrat and liberal.
That is a great thing to hope, actually. But the total decentralization will bring a total democracy/liberty, and it's just too good to be true. I don't think any time or any country could ever achieve it (technically yes, but according to the history, humain will always find a way to destroy things for his own good).
So I think, for some reasons, the decentralization would have so much difficulty in serving all that it could, and as for cryptocurrencies it could be worse, because coins/value represent power, and humain would do the worst thing to get the control of that.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong; and I would be very happy to see that I'm wrong
That is a great thing to hope, actually. But the total decentralization will bring a total democracy/liberty, and it's just too good to be true. I don't think any time or any country could ever achieve it (technically yes, but according to the history, humain will always find a way to destroy things for his own good).
So I think, for some reasons, the decentralization would have so much difficulty in serving all that it could, and as for cryptocurrencies it could be worse, because coins/value represent power, and humain would do the worst thing to get the control of that.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong; and I would be very happy to see that I'm wrong
Jump to: