Topic: There should be no absoulte decentralization! (Read 171 times)

This is just a middle ground fallacy. "If both systems have flaws, then the truth is in the middle". Real world does not always work like that.

If you were to combine a centralized system with decentralized, in our case make a blockchain network, but with some central authority, you will just get the worst of both worlds and none of the benefits. It will be slow and inefficient like blockchain, and people will have to put their trust in a central authority.

Satoshi invented Bitcoin to solve the problem of trusted authorities. If you are inviting them back, you're bringing back all the problems that they cause. There is no centralization-decentralization scale here, it's a very binary thing - you either have to trust someone, or the system is trustless.

Trusting DeFi scams is already a big mistake by the user before that token has any "issues with the code", in other words the moment that the user decided to hand over their money to receive a completely useless token they made their mistake.
In addition they are trusting a platform that is known to have numerous issues including bugs in it and mutability of its blockchain.

The fourth point doesn't sound like users mistake, DeFi projects for example depends on its code and if something happens to the code it's over, even if they manage to work something out the damage will be too high to handle, also it's easy for scammers to evade arrest through decentralized projects, to me it seems like dex is causing more damage than CEX

The main purpose of any decentralized system is to remove middlemen, decision-makers, and others with the power to make decisions. If there is any authority, then the system cannot be considered decentralized. So, your very argument doesn't make sense since the system you are talking about and proposing is not only not absolutely decentralized, it is not decentralized whatsoever. Bitcoin is so far the only representative of a decentralized monetary network. Even if its founder were to appear again, he would not have power over his own invention.

What benefit is there to bitcoin if you are suggesting we have another party to revert transactions that one of the participants is not happy with? Or if one of the parties involved in a deal has the chance to refund the bitcoins back to his address on the grounds that he made a mistake. The possibilities for abuse and engaging in fraudulent activities in such a system would be numerous. Don't send any transactions without making sure all the fields are filled out correctly. Pay attention to the receiving addresses and amounts. After you have checked, check again to make sure. Be responsible and think before you act. You can either trust yourself or place the trust in banks.     

Don't worry OP, absolute decentralization is impossible, there are ways to perform take over on every decentralized system. But your reasoning aren't related with decentralized system weakness.


There are ways to resolve on issue on protocol level without authority.


Transaction fee rate is based on demand and supply, you can set low fees at risks of waiting longer for the transaction got confirmed.
Transaction fee itself is exist to prevent spamming transaction.


It's user mistake, even on centralized service refund could took long  time, cost you refund fee or the authority simply reject your refund request.


If you mean error on protocol level, decentralized system could upgrade their network to fix error.

I will be using only bitcoin only as an example because it is the truly decentralized cryptocurrency.

Problem like what? Decentralized means greater responsibility because you have your coin yourself, not with anyone but you. You will be the one to know how to protect it. Protecting it is not difficult but require knowledge about how to avoid mistakes and scammers that can result to lost of bitcoin. Also we have seen how sites that do kyc do leak our data to hackers, kyc is highly dangerous.

Do you want it to be centralized in a way the mining fee will be gotten only by centralized small number of people that can manipulate the blockchain?

There are some transactions you will make with fiat that your fiat is gone forever. Just know the rules to send to right address.

Bitcoin and it's blockchain has never gone wrong unlike centralized means which are absolutely faulty by nature.

More scam in fiat than in crypto for now to let you know how faulty centralized platforms are.

Do you think if the authority are come from cryptocurrency founder, he will not scamming investors money and run away?

Decentralized, Centralized, or Mixed (Centralized and Decentralized) still there's no system is perfect between them. Centralized and Semi centralized are similar since the authority can controlling/took away investors money/freeze your funds. But the good thing they can solve your problem if you ever made a mistake.

Decentralized are much better IMO since you're free to do with your funds and no need to worry since no one can control your money. But if you ever made a mistake, it's your own fault and no one can help you. That's why you need to learn and secure your funds first to prevent it.

i don't know how you tend to view this @OP but you don't expect a two distinct or directly contradicting view to work together, its like asking the democrats and the republican parries in the US political system to work together. decentralization is one of the bases of the stability of the cryptosphere. Tts a building block that shouldn't be tampered with. Bringing centralization into any aspect of it is as well trying to break its stability and i don't see how that helps. Besides, centralizatio9n has its own problems and their would be a lot of influence on the system. Decentralization may not be perfect and bringing in some elements of centralization doesn't or isn't going to make it perfect either. If we are to face the fact, its the decentralized nature of cryptocurrency that makes it enjoyable and a major attractant. Having freewill is everything, so long as what originates from your end has little or no effect on the other user. mistakes are allowed, it's a common human nature but, when you make them, you learn from them. its all part of the exercise.
To the best of my knowledge, fees aren't determined by miners, its based on the congestion of the system. its based on a complex algorithm set up to control the rate at which transactions are been placed and in turn determine how much activities could be done and time.
[/quote]

You are confusing a bunch of irrelevant things here!
For example user making mistakes is not something that anybody can solve, even if the "founder" had any authority. Otherwise it would simply break the system.
Things such as KYC, etc. are also irreverent here, in fact if the "founder" had any authority it meant that there were a single point of failure where the government could for instance pressure to implement backdoors and other malicious things into. Just look at centralized shitcoins and how they are failing.

Miners don't set the fees, users do.

Again you are describing user mistakes and no amount of "authority" can prevent that without fully centralizing the system and removing basic principles such as immutability.

This is very vague but again it sounds like user mistakes.

ICOs are scamming people on semi-centralized and fully centralized platforms already and there is nothing anybody doing about them. For example the third wave of ICO scams were performed under the name "IEO" where E stands for exchange, 100% centralized exchanges were responsible for these scams and yet they happened.
Again this argument is another case of "user mistakes". Nobody can prevent someone from burning their money.

Which is exactly why cryptos are popular. The fact that each user holds the power to choose what they want and not have a "government" or someone holding the control of the system and make decisions that could be undesirable or unpopular is why people prefer Cryptos.

The capacity of Bitcoin is limited. The fee market is essentially a free market and the market forces is what decides the fees. I don't see the miners interfering in the current situation nor do I think that the rise in the fees are caused by the miners instead of the influx in transactions.
Get a trusted escrow. Bitcoin is reversible. On the contrary, if transactions aren't final, there has to be a third party to make decisions and take sides in the event of a dispute. If you want that, get an escrow.

---

What you've described so far is basically Paypal or any banking system. Bitcoin is designed to counter some of the undesirable characteristics of such systems. If you want those kinds of restrictive rules, then I don't think you should use Bitcoin or any other cryptos.

There is no perfect system and that same thing with absolutism. Absolute decentralized is not effective nor absolute centralized system. Therefore a combination of both system should do in order to get an effective and efficient system.

In the case of cryptocurrency, some are relying too much on complete decentralize system or platform.  Of course as expected there are occuring problems that arises and that still now does not resolve.

Some problems I had seen and observe.

1. The lack of authority from the crypto founder to resolve issues from its user. We will not talk about the authority coming from the government because many of us here will not agree of them to interfere in the system because they can just ruin the anonymity by conducting KYC and other preventive measures. So, what I am seeing is the lack of addressing problems from the founder of the crypto. After they implemented the system they will just say that system is good and ready to go and if you as a user will get mistake then that is your problem and your fault. No one had force you to join in cryptocurrency and you must adapt to it. This is not good for those who wishes a better system.

2. Miners service are decentralize.
Who would ever thought that they could get you a 1$ transaction of a fee which could be more than a thousand dollar's fee? There is something wrong and miners should be held liable into this by only limiting the transaction fee to be deducted not more than the transacted amount. They are abusing due to the fact that their service is in demand especially the bullish trend of bitcoin.

3. The abuse may be only happening and will be resolve between both parties. Same thought about in number 1 but this talk about resolution between both parties and not about the lack of authority from the founder. A certain user could mistakenly send high amount in the transaction without checking it and will be requested for a refund. The other party could deny and there us nothing you could do because it was your fault and no one can help you.

4. Complete decentralize platform may gone wrong.
Again, there is no perfect system and if there will be errors that will going to take place expect that you can no approach any technical team to resolve the issue. Reminders that there are no technical team to review in that errors but only the forum provided.

5. Abusers are free to do scamming in their own decentralized way. The ICO projects before are really worth it and  investors are really earning after investing but today they created a lot of ways in crowdfunding but many of it are just like robbing a bank easily stealing crowdfund even in the daylight.

So much to improve about the cryptocurrency and I think that there should be a need to insert centralized system to get the authority not coming from the government but to the cryptocurrency founder itself.