Topic: Why BitTorrent Mattered — Bittorrent Lessons for Crypto (Read 187 times)

That's not really true. Bittorrent relies on tracker servers so that nodes can find each other. Trackerless bittorrent is possible, but most people probably still use the piratebay or mininova etc. So for the entire history of bittorrent, the network has been a hybrid of decentralisation and semi-centralisation, not dissimilar to the stratification of regular nodes and mining pools in Bitcoin.

Really weird that Bittorrent isn't referred to more by crypto fans. It's the one true example of decentralisation sat staring them in the face. If there was any centralisation whatosever no one would ever have heard of it. Yet people are doing their absolute best to centralise everything as rapidly as possible in cryptoland.

V strange.

Very Nice reading.

I read something similar on Twitter, which got my attention:

Decentralized projects are important to break rules.




Edit;
In the begining he was talking about bitorrent. It was unkillable because it was decentralized.
And he was important because he was the first to break that rule

Hi

This is a really interesting read.

https://medium.com/@simonhmorris/why-bittorrent-mattered-bittorrent-lessons-for-crypto-1-of-4-fa3c6fcef488

https://medium.com/@simonhmorris/if-youre-not-breaking-rules-you-re-doing-it-wrong-bittorrent-lessons-for-crypto-2-of-4-72c68227fe69

https://medium.com/@simonhmorris/intent-complexity-and-the-governance-paradox-bittorrent-lessons-for-crypto-3-of-4-1d14ac390f3f

https://medium.com/@simonhmorris/decentralized-disruption-who-dares-wins-bittorrent-lessons-for-crypto-4-of-4-f022e8641c1a

tl:dr

Then just read this. This is the last part.
(Its not in quotes because i think the text is then too small to read.)

START QUOTE

Recap — Lessons From Bittorrent For the Blockchain

Don’t worry about what decentralization is, worry about what it does.

In particular worry about whether it enables rules to be broken that unlock new ways of doing things or new opportunities that were previously prohibited directly or indirectly by rules. Bluntly, if you’re not breaking rules, you’re doing it wrong.

If you are breaking rules, watch out!

Rules of various types have many defenders, guardians and enforcers. A good way to tell if you’re breaking the rules are if there’s anyone out there that actually cares and wants you to cut it out. There are many examples of rules that have outlived their usefulness, and rule-making is often slow and can be helped along by a good dose of well-intentioned rule-breaking.

Intent is an extremely dangerous signal to send, and yet for companies trying to get established and funded it is hard to see how they can be silent about their intent. Bittorrent succeeded by chance. Bitcoin disclosed its intent but protected itself with anonymity. I’m not sure what to recommend for newly starting companies in this space except to remember that your stated intent will likely follow you forever.

Truly decentralized projects are extremely complex and complexity is costly. Those costs may be differently allocated in a decentralized system, but we should be very cautious of projects that are either overly optimistic about how quickly they can get things done, and especially of those who promise decentralization as a way to make things cheaper.

Governance of a decentralized system is extremely hard.

If you have good decentralization then the coordination costs are going to be very high and the process will be very slow and often ineffective. (Bitcoin? Ethereum??) But if you have strong coordination and an ability to execute a plan with tight discipline, you may not have a very decentralized system and are quite likely exposed to the long arm of rule-enforcement.

The ICO boom is the best example yet of successful rule-breaking.

 Capital formation via the boom around ICOs was the first and maybe only strong example of rule-breaking that has taken place in the blockchain space so far. It has also seems to have been effectively stopped by the rule enforcers, somewhat calling into question how well designed the entire decentralized system was to support this use case.

Rule-breaking is not sustainable without bounds. States (and even ISPs) have enormous power. The stated intent of Bitcoin to undermine rules around government control of sovereign currencies sets an interesting challenge to governments in the case that it ever looks like it might succeed. China and North Korea have both demonstrated pretty clearly that if you control the pipes of the internet then you control the internet. Bittorrent could have been eradicated by state intervention, but most states chose a lighter touch approach. The same is mostly true so far for crypto-currencies, but the scope is so much greater and time will tell at what point a state actor will feel compelled to intervene. (For example if you invent a way for no-one to have to bother paying taxes any more… well good luck with that…)

The ‘winners’ created in the wake of Bittorrent disruption (Spotify and Netflix) shed any semblance of decentralization — it simply wasn’t necessary any more, and actually made things harder. But their success was the result of a paradigm shift where files were abstracted away. In the wake of disruption brought by Bitcoin or other cryptocurrency systems, what will be abstracted away? What will be the paradigm shift? And will a decentralized architecture become irrelevant once the ‘new’ way is identified?

END QUOTE