Topic: Is my crypto decentralized? - page 5. (Read 3406 times)

My personal understanding is that forking is not a case of having to choose between 95 trusted nodes or complete trust in the founder. I believe a fork can have how ever many nodes it chooses based on how many trusted people there are too start it.

I'm not very technical though. My main objection is just essentially that a poll and question and answer thread on what is essentially BitShares being conducted by an undisclosed NXT supporter, who had been very critical of the model, would be inherently biased.

Which parts do you object to?


My only interaction with that thread was based around the "Bitshares is decentralized" claim. Dan Larimer (Bytemaster), the core dev, describes Bitshares as "a distributed multi-user database" in his blogpost "What is Bitshares?".
http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/update/2014/12/18/What-is-BitShares/

I agree with him. The node delegates object and insist it is decentralized (with a disclaimer).


This thread is supposed to be a discussion about decentralization, once we had opinions on what that means then we could go from there. You have prevented that from happening.

Because I felt you had an undisclosed conflict of interest. As a result you haven't given a full unbiased description of the system imo. You've also offered to answer questions on BitShares without being particularly well informed on it.

I think it's not unfair to assume that the subsequent information might be biased & misinformed too.

The thread in the alt-coin section, started by & consisting of mostly NXT supporters has thus far been quite propagandistic imo - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/communist-bitshares-wealth-redistribution-is-theft-916696

if all 95 nodes are:
not owned by a single person but many individuals
not located or managed or supervised in a single persons property on behalf of individuals
where each node has a practical purpose of strengthening the network by being separate and not in collaboration with other nodes.
where there is no bases that a majority stake of nodes can be utilized collectively to manipulate the basic rules

then it COULD be defined as decentralised

Decentralisation isn't an absolute, the system you describe is decentralised enough.  It doesn't mean its necessarily the most decentralised, or the least, but it is sufficiently decentralised to function excellently.

this OP is so low!

let assume i start a new coin, and only 50 people are the first shareholders. Do you call me fair distributed?

But i would never ask this in this way.

All true. Here is what I learned from questioning 2-3 of the delegates; https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10106756


But the point of this thread is the check the communities definition of what decentralized means.

By mentioning Bitshares, you have just skewed people opinions (negatively and positively) without allowing them to consider the facts against the fundamentals of what they consider constitutes decentralised.

Why did you feel the need to do that?

Would you call my set-up decentralized?    No I don't call your "set-up" decentralized , because each person on this planet *must* (or better be able to ) help the network. So you can't "give" the power to only  95 nodes.  Decentralization :


"Decentralization (or decentralisation) is the process of redistributing or dispersing functions, powers, people or things away from a central location or authority."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralization

OP is largely a NXT supporter from what I can gather. Based on his description I think he is essentially asking, without naming it, whether BitShares with it's 101 delegate system meets the criteria to be called decentralized based on his interpretation of it.

This seems to be a spill over from a thread in the altcoin section -

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/communist-bitshares-wealth-redistribution-is-theft-916696

[this thread began in the Bitcoin General section]


I have a crypto currency in my mind. Here are the fundamental properties:


***
The number of nodes in the network is limited to 95, so not all users will have the opportunity to secure the network themselves.


Opinions on the biggest decisions (i.e. increasing the limit on nodes) can be expressed by the users but they are none binding, as the devs who run a proportion of the nodes would have to agree first and then write the fork with a new upper limit of nodes.


Users can change the devs/node runners and replace them with new ones, (i.e. Replace Bitcoin Dev Gavin with someone else who is deemed better) by a ballot. Devs/node runners can run more than 1 node by default if users allow it. If users decide 1 entity = 1 node max, it may be hard to enforce (different online IDs belonging to the same person would have to be detected) but we can do RL passport checks etc to confirm identities are independent before allowing eligibility to be included in the node ballot.


The devs will always run a proportion of the nodes, as they get an income from running a node. There is nothing stopping devs becoming users and taking part in the ballots using tokens they buy.


***


Would you call my set-up decentralized?


I can answer questions to clarify anything, if required. You can change your vote later, if any discussion changes your mind.

Thanks in advance for your opinions