I say: Yes, you can! Imagine, that the right ethereum-agent could do all administrative work for a city!
Can you do that? Most Ethereum-related things I've seen are rather lame.
Topic: Should Everything Be Decentralized? - page 3. (Read 4409 times)
Can you do that? Most Ethereum-related things I've seen are rather lame.
No, because complete decentralization would be the same as the result of 100% entropy. Of course, if it happened, nobody would care, because there wouldn't be anybody around to care. They would all be decentralized.
Maybe we will never obtain a 100% decentralization, because I think the people will start to think decentralization = anarchy but it isn't the same thing. Instead we can decentralize the life aspect as the approach with the government's institutions but it will take some time (and remember the governments can no longer be corrupt, or "bribe").
The slide from the Nakamoto Institute : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPY-5SR-jPQ#t=1063
Of course they use Satoshi's name without permission to try to gain attention for themselves and they claim to know Satoshi's intentions based on cult-like reasoning and wild speculation. They call themselves an "institute" and give themselves titles like "director of research" yet they have no peer review whatsoever outside their small group of nut jobs and they sit around calling everyone else stupid like a bunch of unemployed teenagers who sit around making fun of people going to work..
You can never stop government corruption or change the fundamental nature of human society by running a blockchain . You can maybe affect certain things and disrupt some business models but it is not reasonable to expect more than that. Here is an example of how most people see the Bitcoin "wing nuts" (Note that this guy is starting a business based on cryptocurrencies and not some anti-Bitcoin person)
https://blog.caseykuhlman.com/entries/2014/bitcoin-somaliland.html
Yeah, I hate all these pretentious groups starting with the Bitcoin Foundation. And lol at Nakamoto Institute. Was Nakamoto even asked? Does he even agree with their views? no one should talk in the name of Bitcoin, not even Satoshi himself did it.
Maybe we will never obtain a 100% decentralization, because I think the people will start to think decentralization = anarchy but it isn't the same thing. Instead we can decentralize the life aspect as the approach with the government's institutions but it will take some time (and remember the governments can no longer be corrupt, or "bribe").
The slide from the Nakamoto Institute : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPY-5SR-jPQ#t=1063
Of course they use Satoshi's name without permission to try to gain attention for themselves and they claim to know Satoshi's intentions based on cult-like reasoning and wild speculation. They call themselves an "institute" and give themselves titles like "director of research" yet they have no peer review whatsoever outside their small group of nut jobs and they sit around calling everyone else stupid like a bunch of unemployed teenagers who sit around making fun of people going to work..
You can never stop government corruption or change the fundamental nature of human society by running a blockchain . You can maybe affect certain things and disrupt some business models but it is not reasonable to expect more than that. Here is an example of how most people see the Bitcoin "wing nuts" (Note that this guy is starting a business based on cryptocurrencies and not some anti-Bitcoin person)
https://blog.caseykuhlman.com/entries/2014/bitcoin-somaliland.html
I say: Yes, you can! Imagine, that the right ethereum-agent could do all administrative work for a city! If you see a road hole somewhere, you post it on mist and then all people that are responsible for that street vote for repairing it, so the ethereum agent advertises the work to several company's that return competing offers. Everything transparent, fair and cheap. How nice would that be?
What makes it possible? The Blockchain!
You understand the problem of 51% attacks, but you don't understand the problem with democracy?
If 51% of the people control 100% of the tax-money(in fact they even control money printing)..what do you think will happen?
Yes! it should be , but is it even possible to be 100% Decentralized 
Maybe we will never obtain a 100% decentralization, because I think the people will start to think decentralization = anarchy but it isn't the same thing. Instead we can decentralize the life aspect as the approach with the government's institutions but it will take some time (and remember the governments can no longer be corrupt, or "bribe").
The slide from the Nakamoto Institute : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPY-5SR-jPQ#t=1063
Of course they use Satoshi's name without permission to try to gain attention for themselves and they claim to know Satoshi's intentions based on cult-like reasoning and wild speculation. They call themselves an "institute" and give themselves titles like "director of research" yet they have no peer review whatsoever outside their small group of nut jobs and they sit around calling everyone else stupid like a bunch of unemployed teenagers who sit around making fun of people going to work..
You can never stop government corruption or change the fundamental nature of human society by running a blockchain . You can maybe affect certain things and disrupt some business models but it is not reasonable to expect more than that. Here is an example of how most people see the Bitcoin "wing nuts" (Note that this guy is starting a business based on cryptocurrencies and not some anti-Bitcoin person)
https://blog.caseykuhlman.com/entries/2014/bitcoin-somaliland.html
Maybe we will never obtain a 100% decentralization, because I think the people will start to think decentralization = anarchy but it isn't the same thing. Instead we can decentralize the life aspect as the approach with the government's institutions but it will take some time (and remember the governments can no longer be corrupt, or "bribe").
We can try to have peaceful and order decentralisation!
Maybe we will never obtain a 100% decentralization, because I think the people will start to think decentralization = anarchy but it isn't the same thing. Instead we can decentralize the life aspect as the approach with the government's institutions but it will take some time (and remember the governments can no longer be corrupt, or "bribe").
This has a lot to do with Bitcoin, as Bitcoin is a democratic paradigm. Or aren't 51% attacks an issue in "your reality"?
Bitcoin is a software program and protocol that is a partial solution to a computer science problem called the Byzantine general's problem. While Bitcoin can be used as a tool for various activities it is not in itself inherently political in nature. Also, I would point out I say "partial solution" because the mining activity creates the "facts" and those "facts" can be changed with anyone with 51% of the mining power.
As far as that wacko meme about "democracy is a 51% attack" (that Eric Vorhees puts in his signature) it makes no sense. Voting is about achieving a consensus. In Bitcoin people "vote" by installing software with consensus rules on their computer. Comparing those two mechanisms I don't see where one is inherently better than the other. In some cases one system may work better but it is really a complicated discussion about which one will work better in specific circumstances.
This is the kind of nonsense that makes Bitcoiners look ridiculous. You have a rather complicated question about achieving a consensus, something the human race has grappled with for thousands of years. Then along comes some teenagers and underemployed gamers who claim that using Bitcoin will solve everything. They think they have proved it by creating some simplistic slogan or meme. Then they ("they" being people who have generally not accomplished anything) sit around telling everyone they are stupid because they don't agree with some childish proclamation. Those people over at that Nakamoto "Institute" are some of the worst offenders in this regard.
So yes, I have heard a bunch of teenagers with no credentials and mental cases like Ver who claim I don't understand what Bitcoin is, that I don't understand reality, that I am a "statist" and on and on. Of course I see the potential in Bitcoin technology and I invest in it and set up web sites about it and do public events where I describe it to people. While people discuss using Bitcoin to circumvent banks and such nobody ever asks about collapsing governments, ending war, or replacing the dollar unless it is question about the mental stability of the people making those claims. If you take the class I think it is highly unlikely the Princeton professor will be making those claims. That is the reality and if you get off your Internet discussion boards and join the real world you will see that.
This has a lot to do with Bitcoin, as Bitcoin is a democratic paradigm. Or aren't 51% attacks an issue in "your reality"?
The other day I was thinking bitcoin itself is decentralized, but everything around it is centralized or striving towards being centralized. Let's just take a look at this forum for example. Here are certain people in such power that if they decide, they can destroy you - your forum nickname. Members with trust can give you negative trust for no reason and you have no way to fight against that. Admins can ban you with no reason. Isn't that the principle of "centralization" - a few people having power to do anything and with no justified reasons?
But on the other hand if you want to get something done you have to achieve a consensus of all the participants. That is slow and expensive and the world would essentially come to a halt if everything were done that way. Everybody involved should try mining and see how difficult and expensive it is and if you use Bitcoin for any length of time you run up against confirmation issues. It taking too long to be viable in certain use cases and people substitute centralized services (Bitpay, coinbase, etc.) to compensate for that.
Consent may be slow, but it's absolutely necessary.
From a semi-technical point:
Maybe it takes longer to reach a consent, but consent is the most important component in a free and peaceful society. If power got centralized a hierarchy is created.
The main problem here is our holy-grail-decision-principle : Democracy! Democracy is like a permanent 51% attack that is accepted as legit!
Democracy is a dictatorship of the majority and stands therefor diametrical opposed to any form of freedom, not to talk about any free decisions.
If we want freedom and sustainability, we need to do things in a sociocratic way. That says that the the vote of the majority has the equal value to the minority's vote.
What does that mean?
The people find something, a foundation, a consent, that brings them together. Everything above that consent has to be done on their own. For example: 20 people buy a farm and want to produce their food by themselves. Ironically there are 11 people that eat meat, 9 do not. What might happen in a democratically oriented system? Everyone pays for meat production because the majority decides to do so. In a sociocratic system they have a common foundation, the farm and the support of the community. So the decision would look like following (maybe): You find synergies in both projects and meat eaters support meat production, vegetarians finance vegetable production. Where both projects can work together, they do. Like use the same house to produce their products...asf.
So,when you talk about decentralization,don't forget that democracy is not compatible with that.
Democracy does one thing for sure: It produces hatred, strife and violence. It's just a matter of time.
That is so far outside of reality it is not worth discussing and it really has nothing to do with Bitcoin. Linking these discussions and cults to Bitcoin just makes Bitcoiners look ridiculous which is why I suggest taking the class.
Not everything should be decentralized. Why not? If it all were decentralized, nobody would own any private property. If nobody owned any private property, he wouldn't even own himself. If he didn't own himself, and there was no decentralization, nobody could own him, and he essentially couldn't do anything.
Let decentralization exist only for the things that people have joint agreements about, and only the kinds of joint agreements that are written down. Otherwise decentralization will become a massive socialism worse than even the greatest socialism of Russia and China combined.
Let decentralization exist only for the things that people have joint agreements about, and only the kinds of joint agreements that are written down. Otherwise decentralization will become a massive socialism worse than even the greatest socialism of Russia and China combined.
No, not everything should be decentralized. Bitcoin, the currency and protocol, itself is inherently decentralized, but doesn't mean the applications, systems, and companies surrounding Bitcoin has to be decentralized.
IE Coinbase, Circle, BitPay, Gemini, COIN ETF all being centralized companies or services, but support Bitcoin the currency/protocol.
It doesn't have to be an absolute thing, it can be a hybrid give and take system.
IE Coinbase, Circle, BitPay, Gemini, COIN ETF all being centralized companies or services, but support Bitcoin the currency/protocol.
It doesn't have to be an absolute thing, it can be a hybrid give and take system.
Maybe the anarchy is not so "bad" , the actual democracy (with this economic system) has failed. Bitcoin is a revolution and at the end I'm sure it will succeed. As MarihuanaStocks told (and this is true):
Democracy is a dictatorship of the majority and stands therefor diametrical opposed to any form of freedom, not to talk about any free decisions.
Democracy is a dictatorship of the majority and stands therefor diametrical opposed to any form of freedom, not to talk about any free decisions.
The other day I was thinking bitcoin itself is decentralized, but everything around it is centralized or striving towards being centralized. Let's just take a look at this forum for example. Here are certain people in such power that if they decide, they can destroy you - your forum nickname. Members with trust can give you negative trust for no reason and you have no way to fight against that. Admins can ban you with no reason. Isn't that the principle of "centralization" - a few people having power to do anything and with no justified reasons?
But on the other hand if you want to get something done you have to achieve a consensus of all the participants. That is slow and expensive and the world would essentially come to a halt if everything were done that way. Everybody involved should try mining and see how difficult and expensive it is and if you use Bitcoin for any length of time you run up against confirmation issues. It taking too long to be viable in certain use cases and people substitute centralized services (Bitpay, coinbase, etc.) to compensate for that.
Consent may be slow, but it's absolutely necessary.
From a semi-technical point:
Maybe it takes longer to reach a consent, but consent is the most important component in a free and peaceful society. If power got centralized a hierarchy is created.
The main problem here is our holy-grail-decision-principle : Democracy! Democracy is like a permanent 51% attack that is accepted as legit!
Democracy is a dictatorship of the majority and stands therefor diametrical opposed to any form of freedom, not to talk about any free decisions.
If we want freedom and sustainability, we need to do things in a sociocratic way. That says that the the vote of the majority has the equal value to the minority's vote.
What does that mean?
The people find something, a foundation, a consent, that brings them together. Everything above that consent has to be done on their own. For example: 20 people buy a farm and want to produce their food by themselves. Ironically there are 11 people that eat meat, 9 do not. What might happen in a democratically oriented system? Everyone pays for meat production because the majority decides to do so. In a sociocratic system they have a common foundation, the farm and the support of the community. So the decision would look like following (maybe): You find synergies in both projects and meat eaters support meat production, vegetarians finance vegetable production. Where both projects can work together, they do. Like use the same house to produce their products...asf.
So,when you talk about decentralization,don't forget that democracy is not compatible with that.
Democracy does one thing for sure: It produces hatred, strife and violence. It's just a matter of time.
I don't think everything should be decentralized obviously, but there are certain things that should be like marketplaces and exchanges.
But there's an opposite to this. What happens when there are certain situations or scenarios where not being able to shut something down are a bad thing? What happens then?
I prefer decentralization based the basis that nobody can controls it or shut it down. Based on that reason alone any other justification may not be important. That's how I think...
But there's an opposite to this. What happens when there are certain situations or scenarios where not being able to shut something down are a bad thing? What happens then?
yes, absolutely EVERYTHING needs to be decentralized
Comments like these show you many are completely clueless about what decentralization is and how it works. These people should be enrolled in that Princeton class instead of posting nonsense on discussion boards.
If someone calls themselves an "anarcho capitalist" you know right away they are not credible. If you had anarchy it would not be possible to be a capitalist because they would not be able to protect the property that is amassed (except by force). In any case it is a waste of time to argue with those people as they will just go on forever and constantly point to some kind of reference that "proves" they are right. They fall into categories: Young people who don't know any better, scammers or tax cheats, and mentally ill. They make it difficult to promote Bitcoin but as it becomes popular those types will be pushed to the side. Places like Jerry Brito and Coin Center and the involvement of Universities like Princeton will change the face of Bitcoin over time. You may notice this forum has gone way down in importance mostly because of the nut jobs who run the site.
If someone talks about "anarcho-capitalism" he talkes of decentralisation. If someone talks of Socialism he is talking about centralisation. Let me guess: You see liberalism as something bad, something that must be regulated to sustain?
Or one of those that don't know what capitalism means, so they call it fascism, because they do not know what that is either?
Anarcho-capitalism means that you need no state-regulations. Everything can be negotiated between free market members.It bases upon the non-aggression principle. Nobody is allowed to hurt another person, because it violates their rights. But you are right, there would be no state authority, to watch after individual rights. It would be a private one! Which is much more efficient, credible and works consumer-oriented. In fact state authority will never manage to do that
But i guess you knew that allready.
yes, absolutely EVERYTHING needs to be decentralized
This is very idealistic thinking.
It's not possibly really, not for all aspects of human life, like politics, public service, banking etc.
Bitcoin is great example of decentralization but such model can't work in every area of human life.
How about thinking on operating by standards fruit of consensus? I mean, distributed in a way that not only individuals but groups that share same interest/needs define their own rules. Coinbase.com is not a good example, it is a closed service where a privileged groups define everything, if there is no power to refund, then how can we get protected? I like how cooperatives work, we need a network of cooperatives that create services and goods, that operate under standards and where decisions are taken by consensus. Just my 2c.
yes, absolutely EVERYTHING needs to be decentralized
Comments like these show you many are completely clueless about what decentralization is and how it works. These people should be enrolled in that Princeton class instead of posting nonsense on discussion boards.
If someone calls themselves an "anarcho capitalist" you know right away they are not credible. If you had anarchy it would not be possible to be a capitalist because they would not be able to protect the property that is amassed (except by force). In any case it is a waste of time to argue with those people as they will just go on forever and constantly point to some kind of reference that "proves" they are right. They fall into categories: Young people who don't know any better, scammers or tax cheats, and mentally ill. They make it difficult to promote Bitcoin but as it becomes popular those types will be pushed to the side. Places like Jerry Brito and Coin Center and the involvement of Universities like Princeton will change the face of Bitcoin over time. You may notice this forum has gone way down in importance mostly because of the nut jobs who run the site.
Jump to: