6 ms·

I keep seeing this idea invoked over and over again, and it's starting to bug me. The problem with this idea is that it conflates technical decentralization and

I keep seeing this idea invoked over and over again, and it's starting to bug me. The problem with this idea is that it conflates technical decentralization and the spirit or ideals of decentralization. The latter can be betrayed or degraded even while the former is preserved. Just because the miners aren't compelled by the network architecture to implement a fork doesn't mean that there aren't social dynamics which have the effect of centralizing decisions made by those miners. "Consensus" doesn't have any inherent value or rightness. Consensus is just a majority of a group electing to do something. In the world of the decentralized web, consensus is positive only when network nodes are truly acting autonomously. It's best when this means that each node acts in self-interest, without regard for or in ignorance of the interests or positions of the other nodes. This is not what's happening on the Ethereum network. There's a huge amount of coordination. Ethereum is a network that hasn't individuated itself from a relatively small group of creators/maintainers/community members. As long as the network depends on these people for strength and stability, the miners will be biased to carry out the wishes of those people. Otherwise the miners risk losing whatever value they've accrued through their work. So yes, the fork only happens through a consensus of the miners. But it hasn't been established that the miners are capable of independent action.

andrepd 10y ago
But what's your point? Ethereum is not decentralised because... there are social dynamics? What do you want to do about it? The protocol is decentralised, the technology is completely agnostic to anything but the will of the majority. Of course there will be social dynamics and people will discuss things and read things and coordinate and influence one another. That does not invalidate the whole thing.
- bduerst 10y ago
  I think the point they're making is that there's this common "Fallacy of the Census", which is like an appeal to popularity. By only saying that the problems will sort themselves out because a census controls the network doesn't address the other factors that can be influencing the decisions of the majority. Essentially a census-controlled network isn't infallible (i.e. bitcoin block size debate).
- drewcrawford 10y ago
  Suppose for a minute the miners and the software developers disagreed strongly on some important decision. What do you think would happen? * Would the software developers suck it up and follow the miners? * Would the pool of software developers shrink because various developers do not find implementing the will of the miners to be an enjoyable hobby and/or job anymore? * Would the miners hire new software developers to replace the ones that leave? * Would there be a fork? I don't know, but pretending that "the protocol is decentralised, the technology is completely agnostic to anything but the will of the majority" is ignoring the realpolitik of this kind of situation. Saying that Ethereum implements the will of the majority is like saying American democracy implements the will of the majority. Sort of? But meanwhile there are a lot of empirical studies [0] demonstrating that the will of the people has little to no influence over American public policy. A democratic financial system is much more corruptible than a democratic political system. [0] https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...
- oillio 10y ago
  We have to assume Satoshi saw this problem and actually did something about it. No one can come out and say, "We must change bitcoin. You should follow me because I created it." By removing the founder role, Bitcoin is just that much more decentralized.
  - aakilfernandes 10y ago
    I like the Ethereum has a founder and leadership team. I just want them to use their influence wisely.
    - oillio 10y ago
      Yeah, recent events show the lack of leadership causes its own problems.
    - soconfused1 10y ago
      It is better without it. Their leadership position is a bigger liability than it helps.
_98fj 10y ago
That reminds me of philosophic "free will". Am I really free to choose or are my thoughts and surroundings "forcing me" towards. If the miners freely agree to accept a fork, were they really free in their decision or did they do it because of peer-pressure or because humans like to preserve groups more than anything else? On the other hand: What would need to happen to "prove" independency of the organization?
eternalban 10y ago
> The latter can be betrayed or degraded even while the former is preserved. Yes, just like a constitution. System architecture (political or otherwise) can not save mankind from the failings (of a subset) of itself.
- kaiwen1 10y ago
  However, use of cryptocurrencies is opt in and thus caveat emptor. The constitution OTOH is not opt-in, nor for practical purposes opt-out. You're shackled to it at birth.

andrepd 10y ago

But what's your point? Ethereum is not decentralised because... there are social dynamics? What do you want to do about it? The protocol is decentralised, the technology is completely agnostic to anything but the will of the majority. Of course there will be social dynamics and people will discuss things and read things and coordinate and influence one another. That does not invalidate the whole thing.

bduerst 10y ago
I think the point they're making is that there's this common "Fallacy of the Census", which is like an appeal to popularity. By only saying that the problems will sort themselves out because a census controls the network doesn't address the other factors that can be influencing the decisions of the majority. Essentially a census-controlled network isn't infallible (i.e. bitcoin block size debate).
drewcrawford 10y ago
Suppose for a minute the miners and the software developers disagreed strongly on some important decision. What do you think would happen? * Would the software developers suck it up and follow the miners? * Would the pool of software developers shrink because various developers do not find implementing the will of the miners to be an enjoyable hobby and/or job anymore? * Would the miners hire new software developers to replace the ones that leave? * Would there be a fork? I don't know, but pretending that "the protocol is decentralised, the technology is completely agnostic to anything but the will of the majority" is ignoring the realpolitik of this kind of situation. Saying that Ethereum implements the will of the majority is like saying American democracy implements the will of the majority. Sort of? But meanwhile there are a lot of empirical studies [0] demonstrating that the will of the people has little to no influence over American public policy. A democratic financial system is much more corruptible than a democratic political system. [0] https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...
oillio 10y ago
We have to assume Satoshi saw this problem and actually did something about it. No one can come out and say, "We must change bitcoin. You should follow me because I created it." By removing the founder role, Bitcoin is just that much more decentralized.
- aakilfernandes 10y ago
  I like the Ethereum has a founder and leadership team. I just want them to use their influence wisely.
  - oillio 10y ago
    Yeah, recent events show the lack of leadership causes its own problems.
  - soconfused1 10y ago
    It is better without it. Their leadership position is a bigger liability than it helps.

_98fj 10y ago

That reminds me of philosophic "free will". Am I really free to choose or are my thoughts and surroundings "forcing me" towards. If the miners freely agree to accept a fork, were they really free in their decision or did they do it because of peer-pressure or because humans like to preserve groups more than anything else? On the other hand: What would need to happen to "prove" independency of the organization?

eternalban 10y ago

> The latter can be betrayed or degraded even while the former is preserved. Yes, just like a constitution. System architecture (political or otherwise) can not save mankind from the failings (of a subset) of itself.

kaiwen1 10y ago
However, use of cryptocurrencies is opt in and thus caveat emptor. The constitution OTOH is not opt-in, nor for practical purposes opt-out. You're shackled to it at birth.