4 ms·

> but they didn't halt trading until they were asked to, so clearly it wasn't totally in their interests? Not at all. This is a classic "coordination problem".

by mcherm 10y ago

> but they didn't halt trading until they were asked to, so clearly it wasn't totally in their interests? Not at all. This is a classic "coordination problem". It is advantageous for many participants in the overall system to take an action, but only if the other participants are ALSO taking the action. In such a case, a widely followed and popular leader is one possible coordinating mechanism. And it does not give that popular leader the ability to do ANYTHING, only things that actually ARE popular but require coordination.

joosters 10y ago
a widely followed and popular leader is one possible coordinating mechanism. That's the exact opposite of decentralized. Are we going to have to redefine the word?
- vertex-four 10y ago
  Nobody has to follow the leader. Want to keep your exchange trading? Go ahead - nobody can stop you. It just so happens that everybody agrees this time.
- viraptor 10y ago
  I don't agree. Centralised control would mean one person can change anything. Decentralised doesn't mean that nobody can propose a solution - only that others have to agree on it before it goes live. How do you imagine decentralised decisions happening otherwise? Everyone choosing their own solution without ever talking to each other and seeing what is most popular?
- mcherm 10y ago
  I'm not sure whether we are redefining it... I suppose it depends on what definition you were starting with! My idea of "decentralized" includes things like "continues to function perfectly well if any one person or small group is removed from the process" and "continues to function perfectly well if any one person or small group becomes malicious". In this case, if Vitalik Buterin were not around to announce the problem, someone else could announce it and that would provide a coordinating signal for all of the independent players to act on. If Vitalik Buterin were malicious and decided to announce a rollback of a big spend he had done, then the independent miners and mining pool operators would (I hope) choose to ignore the announcement and refuse to participate. I guess to me, having a centralized group or individual make decisions seems to violate "decentralized", but having one of several possible groups or individuals make announcements which signal the population to take action does not.

by mcherm 10y ago

joosters 10y ago

a widely followed and popular leader is one possible coordinating mechanism. That's the exact opposite of decentralized. Are we going to have to redefine the word?

vertex-four 10y ago
Nobody has to follow the leader. Want to keep your exchange trading? Go ahead - nobody can stop you. It just so happens that everybody agrees this time.
viraptor 10y ago
I don't agree. Centralised control would mean one person can change anything. Decentralised doesn't mean that nobody can propose a solution - only that others have to agree on it before it goes live. How do you imagine decentralised decisions happening otherwise? Everyone choosing their own solution without ever talking to each other and seeing what is most popular?
mcherm 10y ago
I'm not sure whether we are redefining it... I suppose it depends on what definition you were starting with! My idea of "decentralized" includes things like "continues to function perfectly well if any one person or small group is removed from the process" and "continues to function perfectly well if any one person or small group becomes malicious". In this case, if Vitalik Buterin were not around to announce the problem, someone else could announce it and that would provide a coordinating signal for all of the independent players to act on. If Vitalik Buterin were malicious and decided to announce a rollback of a big spend he had done, then the independent miners and mining pool operators would (I hope) choose to ignore the announcement and refuse to participate. I guess to me, having a centralized group or individual make decisions seems to violate "decentralized", but having one of several possible groups or individuals make announcements which signal the population to take action does not.