3 ms·

Vitalik (of ethereum) has a pretty good blog post talking about the different types of decentralization: architectural, political, and logical.[0] For blockcha

Vitalik (of ethereum) has a pretty good blog post talking about the different types of decentralization: architectural, political, and logical.[0] For blockchains, he says: "Blockchains are politically decentralized (no one controls them) and architecturally decentralized (no infrastructural central point of failure) but they are logically centralized (there is one commonly agreed state and the system behaves like a single computer)" [0] https://medium.com/@VitalikButerin/the-meaning-of-decentralization-a0c92b76a274 https://medium.com/@VitalikButerin/the-meaning-of-decentrali...

kbody 9y ago
So ironic to read "decentralized (no one controls them)" coming from the leader of ETH that made the decision to fork ETH and revert transactions related to the DAO hack.
- Lerc 9y ago
  But with decentralized control it's not a decision, it's a proposal. A lot of people feel like Bitcoin etc. are Stick-it-to-the-man endeavors. In the long term I think they will be disappointed. I think the real benefit of this sort of decentralization would be if multiple governments took an active part in its operation. America could propose something but it wouldn't take effect if they can't convince the mining majority of China,Russia,France,Australia,Nigeria and India. No one entity can unilaterally make a decision for their own benefit.
  - 52-6F-62 9y ago
    Well put. I've seen the 'DAO-hard-fork' line swung around pretty wildly over the recent popularity surge the past few months -- but you nailed it. That difference is the whole point. It could be argued that Vitalik has enough political clout in the community now to do nearly whatever he wants, but that only goes so far as whatever he's proposing is agreeable upon a consensus. If the miners disagree, then it's a no go because they make it work. If the larger userbase disagrees, then the miners will be bent to disagree because there won't be any money in it if everyone sells off. It's shortsighted to think that because there are influential parties the whole system is broken. (hint: functioning democracies work this way. As far as most people can tell so far, it's a good thing) I also agree with the rest of your positions here. To wit: while governments are hesitant and slow to get directly involved, they _are_ doing active research[0][1] into how/why/when it will be valuable to use existing blockchains or for what reason they could employ new ones. So are many banks. The distributed ledger seems to hold inherent value for everybody. [0] Being from Canada, I know more about the goings here than elsewhere. The article has a rather negative tone, but the point being they are experimenting and recognize the need to keep up technologically, and the need to improve upon current systems. They are speaking more directly to virtual currencies here. -- https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/bank-of-canada-says-wont-use-blockchain-for-interbank-payment-system/article35112169/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/bank-of-c... [1] Fintech and Financial Services: Initial Considerations - IMF -- http://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/SDN/2017/sdn1705.ashx http://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/SDN/2017/sdn17...
- nihonde 9y ago
  The decision to fork can be taken alone, but the decision to stay with one fork or the other is made by the individuals who participate in the network.
- wslh 9y ago
  Blockchains are not God creations, so indeed there is no immutability when (some) people make a new agreement and fork a blockchain. Also, the legal systems and social contracts are not immutable either, expecting that you can set rules now that can persist forever is naive.
runeks 9y ago
> [..] but they are logically centralized (there is one commonly agreed state and the system behaves like a single computer)" That's just a protocol. He uses the term "logic centralization" to describe the fact that we agree on a protocol. Bitcoin, and any other protocol, doesn't exist in spite of "logical centralization", it exists because of it, since that's what a protocol is (if you want to use that term).

kbody 9y ago

So ironic to read "decentralized (no one controls them)" coming from the leader of ETH that made the decision to fork ETH and revert transactions related to the DAO hack.

Lerc 9y ago
But with decentralized control it's not a decision, it's a proposal. A lot of people feel like Bitcoin etc. are Stick-it-to-the-man endeavors. In the long term I think they will be disappointed. I think the real benefit of this sort of decentralization would be if multiple governments took an active part in its operation. America could propose something but it wouldn't take effect if they can't convince the mining majority of China,Russia,France,Australia,Nigeria and India. No one entity can unilaterally make a decision for their own benefit.
- 52-6F-62 9y ago
  Well put. I've seen the 'DAO-hard-fork' line swung around pretty wildly over the recent popularity surge the past few months -- but you nailed it. That difference is the whole point. It could be argued that Vitalik has enough political clout in the community now to do nearly whatever he wants, but that only goes so far as whatever he's proposing is agreeable upon a consensus. If the miners disagree, then it's a no go because they make it work. If the larger userbase disagrees, then the miners will be bent to disagree because there won't be any money in it if everyone sells off. It's shortsighted to think that because there are influential parties the whole system is broken. (hint: functioning democracies work this way. As far as most people can tell so far, it's a good thing) I also agree with the rest of your positions here. To wit: while governments are hesitant and slow to get directly involved, they _are_ doing active research[0][1] into how/why/when it will be valuable to use existing blockchains or for what reason they could employ new ones. So are many banks. The distributed ledger seems to hold inherent value for everybody. [0] Being from Canada, I know more about the goings here than elsewhere. The article has a rather negative tone, but the point being they are experimenting and recognize the need to keep up technologically, and the need to improve upon current systems. They are speaking more directly to virtual currencies here. -- https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/bank-of-canada-says-wont-use-blockchain-for-interbank-payment-system/article35112169/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/bank-of-c... [1] Fintech and Financial Services: Initial Considerations - IMF -- http://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/SDN/2017/sdn1705.ashx http://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/SDN/2017/sdn17...
nihonde 9y ago
The decision to fork can be taken alone, but the decision to stay with one fork or the other is made by the individuals who participate in the network.
wslh 9y ago
Blockchains are not God creations, so indeed there is no immutability when (some) people make a new agreement and fork a blockchain. Also, the legal systems and social contracts are not immutable either, expecting that you can set rules now that can persist forever is naive.

runeks 9y ago

> [..] but they are logically centralized (there is one commonly agreed state and the system behaves like a single computer)" That's just a protocol. He uses the term "logic centralization" to describe the fact that we agree on a protocol. Bitcoin, and any other protocol, doesn't exist in spite of "logical centralization", it exists because of it, since that's what a protocol is (if you want to use that term).