We should decentralise everything we can in my opinion.
First sensible thing I've read in this forum all day
Topic: Should Everything Be Decentralized? - page 5. (Read 4409 times)
First sensible thing I've read in this forum all day
We should decentralise everything we can in my opinion.
Some people in Bitcoin are arguing that everything (or most things) should be decentralized. I firmly disagree with them, and here's why:
1. There's only a limited amount of world-class programmers - if they are working on 1000 different projects it's very likely that 950 of these projects won't be used by more than just a few people - effectively wasting a lot of time that could be used to make a huge project.
2. Usability: Most projects that are trying to "decentralize" are not user-friendly at all. Companies however are building very user-friendly software and manage to actually attract a lot of users (see: coinbase.com)
There are certainly a few cool projects that are decentralized, but most of them will probably remain to be unknown by the general public.
Comments?
1. There's only a limited amount of world-class programmers - if they are working on 1000 different projects it's very likely that 950 of these projects won't be used by more than just a few people - effectively wasting a lot of time that could be used to make a huge project.
2. Usability: Most projects that are trying to "decentralize" are not user-friendly at all. Companies however are building very user-friendly software and manage to actually attract a lot of users (see: coinbase.com)
There are certainly a few cool projects that are decentralized, but most of them will probably remain to be unknown by the general public.
Comments?
Some people in Bitcoin are arguing that everything (or most things) should be decentralized. I firmly disagree with them, and here's why:
1. There's only a limited amount of world-class programmers - if they are working on 1000 different projects it's very likely that 950 of these projects won't be used by more than just a few people - effectively wasting a lot of time that could be used to make a huge project.
2. Usability: Most projects that are trying to "decentralize" are not user-friendly at all. Companies however are building very user-friendly software and manage to actually attract a lot of users (see: coinbase.com)
There are certainly a few cool projects that are decentralized, but most of them will probably remain to be unknown by the general public.
Comments?
1. There's only a limited amount of world-class programmers - if they are working on 1000 different projects it's very likely that 950 of these projects won't be used by more than just a few people - effectively wasting a lot of time that could be used to make a huge project.
2. Usability: Most projects that are trying to "decentralize" are not user-friendly at all. Companies however are building very user-friendly software and manage to actually attract a lot of users (see: coinbase.com)
There are certainly a few cool projects that are decentralized, but most of them will probably remain to be unknown by the general public.
Comments?
As long as participation is voluntary, then you can have all types of projects.
When you have a Gov't forcing centralization, then you have huge problems.
Bitcoin, being used/placed into a centralized system, will always end with massive failure or loss, IMO.
Does that mean you'd prefer not having the Winklevoss ETF? (even thought that could be a massive boost for Bitcoin)Personally, I want bitcoin to become a respected recognized system that is safe and reliable.
It is already designed to be so.
My problem is when I place it into another system that is the opposite of what Bitcoin is.
Then my bitcoins are not safe, prone to loss, loses respect, and ultimately seen as a scam.
If the ETF is insured, then common people will use it. But they won't own BTC, but a piece of paper.
The BTC will be held by Winklevoss in there centralized system, I assume.
If the Winklevoss don't have an independent auditor every so often, how do will we know they have the BTC?
Centralization is fine for normal systems. But when you throw BTC in there, I think we have to be more careful.
Bitcoin, being used/placed into a centralized system, will always end with massive failure or loss, IMO.
Does that mean you'd prefer not having the Winklevoss ETF? (even thought that could be a massive boost for Bitcoin)
I don't think everything should be decentralized.
Centralized has it own advantage.
It can respond much faster.
Centralized has it own advantage.
It can respond much faster.
Okay. I just saw people saying that a few times now and wanted to comment on that.
Decentralization is expensive, slow and difficult to do and is not needed or warranted for most things.
If you want to understand Bitcoin you have to learn to ignore the "wing nuts" and focus on the technology. Many people make exaggerated claims because they are using Bitcoin to promote a political agenda or they are cultists. I would suggest enrolling in the Princeton U class at https://piazza.com/princeton/spring2015/btctech/home rather than listening to random people who misrepresent or exaggerate things.
If you want to understand Bitcoin you have to learn to ignore the "wing nuts" and focus on the technology. Many people make exaggerated claims because they are using Bitcoin to promote a political agenda or they are cultists. I would suggest enrolling in the Princeton U class at https://piazza.com/princeton/spring2015/btctech/home rather than listening to random people who misrepresent or exaggerate things.
Some people in Bitcoin are arguing that everything (or most things) should be decentralized. I firmly disagree with them, and here's why:
1. There's only a limited amount of world-class programmers - if they are working on 1000 different projects it's very likely that 950 of these projects won't be used by more than just a few people - effectively wasting a lot of time that could be used to make a huge project.
2. Usability: Most projects that are trying to "decentralize" are not user-friendly at all. Companies however are building very user-friendly software and manage to actually attract a lot of users (see: coinbase.com)
There are certainly a few cool projects that are decentralized, but most of them will probably remain to be unknown by the general public.
Comments?
I don't think everything should be decentralized.1. There's only a limited amount of world-class programmers - if they are working on 1000 different projects it's very likely that 950 of these projects won't be used by more than just a few people - effectively wasting a lot of time that could be used to make a huge project.
2. Usability: Most projects that are trying to "decentralize" are not user-friendly at all. Companies however are building very user-friendly software and manage to actually attract a lot of users (see: coinbase.com)
There are certainly a few cool projects that are decentralized, but most of them will probably remain to be unknown by the general public.
Comments?
Centralized has it own advantage.
It can respond much faster.
An experiment in decentralization is the basis of Bitcoin.
You can make non-decentralized systems all day, but it won't be Bitcoin safe.
Bitcoin is not insurable or refundable (currently). Its a new theory or way of payment processing.
Bitcoin, being used/placed into a centralized system, will always end with massive failure or loss, IMO.
You can make non-decentralized systems all day, but it won't be Bitcoin safe.
Bitcoin is not insurable or refundable (currently). Its a new theory or way of payment processing.
Bitcoin, being used/placed into a centralized system, will always end with massive failure or loss, IMO.
Some people in Bitcoin are arguing that everything (or most things) should be decentralized. I firmly disagree with them, and here's why:
1. There's only a limited amount of world-class programmers - if they are working on 1000 different projects it's very likely that 950 of these projects won't be used by more than just a few people - effectively wasting a lot of time that could be used to make a huge project.
2. Usability: Most projects that are trying to "decentralize" are not user-friendly at all. Companies however are building very user-friendly software and manage to actually attract a lot of users (see: coinbase.com)
There are certainly a few cool projects that are decentralized, but most of them will probably remain to be unknown by the general public.
Comments?
1. There's only a limited amount of world-class programmers - if they are working on 1000 different projects it's very likely that 950 of these projects won't be used by more than just a few people - effectively wasting a lot of time that could be used to make a huge project.
2. Usability: Most projects that are trying to "decentralize" are not user-friendly at all. Companies however are building very user-friendly software and manage to actually attract a lot of users (see: coinbase.com)
There are certainly a few cool projects that are decentralized, but most of them will probably remain to be unknown by the general public.
Comments?
Jump to: