4 ms·

Prediction: every dapp that ships over the next year as these technologies mature will have its top comment on HN be "actually this is not 100% decentralized"

by gfodor 9y ago

Prediction: every dapp that ships over the next year as these technologies mature will have its top comment on HN be "actually this is not 100% decentralized" it would be very helpful to get out ahead of this and have a framework for classifying how decentralized an app is. otherwise we may find ourselves in a situation where nobody migrates off of fully centralized apps to less centralized apps because they aren't "fully decentralized", which would be a shame.

skiman10 9y ago
I completely agree. Do you have any thoughts on a framework for classifying these 'decentralized' apps?
ucaetano 9y ago
One way to do it is to think about which parts are centralized vs. distributed vs. replicated: discovery, authentication, processing, storage, files, etc. Take bitcoin, for example: the ledger is centralized (there is a single monolithic one) but its storage is replicated (there isn't a single central storage location) and the processing is decentralized.
- mattnguyen 9y ago
  It doesn't follow that a "single monolithic ledger" means Bitcoin is decentralized. Since all (full) nodes carry a copy of the entire ledger and every participant in the network can propose transaction blocks to the blockchain, there isn't one party that controls writing to the ledger. Risk of centralization comes from mining pools that control 51% of the hashing power. [1] [1] https://bitcoin.org/en/glossary/51-percent-attack https://bitcoin.org/en/glossary/51-percent-attack
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    > It doesn't follow that a "single monolithic ledger" means Bitcoin is decentralized Oh, I never mentioned that. But the implication of the single, monolithic ledger is that it isn't partition-tolerant, if you don't have access to the ledger, you can't transact. IIRC, the lightning network kinda addresses that by allowing off-central-ledger transactions.
RobLach 9y ago
I feel any step towards decentralization is a good one and I there will always be a group of creators who will push that boundary and believe that it is their duty to do so. There will also be those that will adopt it especially as the status quo becomes increasingly less attractive. I'm personally more critical of all these crypto technologies that can be decentralized but have unnecessarily opted to maintain a centralized power structure. The vast majority of Token/Blockchain whitepapers I've read distribute a majority share of the power to the developers and/or investors and/or early adopters. In that sense it's less of goal of decentralization and more of enabling a new class division where a new group of people become the powerful by making a bet on which new system will be dominant. That's of course by design as it provides a major incentive for gathering a coalition of support and tractable adoption. Ultimately I think all these attempts at centralizing power just expose an internal instability in these systems that is ripe for disruption by a benevolent actor and currently these are feel like opportunistic cash grabs exploiting fools with the luckily fortunate benefit of having these technologies explored. I do believe all the right pieces are beginning to emerge each new cryptowhatever exploring and testing a new algorithm or consensus scheme or concept. At some point someone will put it all together to create a truly fair decentralized trust-less system that will have an internet-scale effect on our society. It will have the same effect on things like Bitcoin that Wikipedia had on printed encyclopedias, but with an truly incredible scope of change extending far beyond trade and communication. I also get the sense that the current systems will need a collapse to signal the defects. The allure of how lucrative it is to build it predominantly to your own benefit, especially given how willingly people are to accept it, is intense and probably even market efficient. It reminds me of that Frank Herbert quote: "All rebels are closet aristocrats. That’s why I can convert them so easily."

by gfodor 9y ago

skiman10 9y ago

I completely agree. Do you have any thoughts on a framework for classifying these 'decentralized' apps?

ucaetano 9y ago

One way to do it is to think about which parts are centralized vs. distributed vs. replicated: discovery, authentication, processing, storage, files, etc. Take bitcoin, for example: the ledger is centralized (there is a single monolithic one) but its storage is replicated (there isn't a single central storage location) and the processing is decentralized.

mattnguyen 9y ago
It doesn't follow that a "single monolithic ledger" means Bitcoin is decentralized. Since all (full) nodes carry a copy of the entire ledger and every participant in the network can propose transaction blocks to the blockchain, there isn't one party that controls writing to the ledger. Risk of centralization comes from mining pools that control 51% of the hashing power. [1] [1] https://bitcoin.org/en/glossary/51-percent-attack https://bitcoin.org/en/glossary/51-percent-attack
- ucaetano 9y ago
  > It doesn't follow that a "single monolithic ledger" means Bitcoin is decentralized Oh, I never mentioned that. But the implication of the single, monolithic ledger is that it isn't partition-tolerant, if you don't have access to the ledger, you can't transact. IIRC, the lightning network kinda addresses that by allowing off-central-ledger transactions.

RobLach 9y ago

I feel any step towards decentralization is a good one and I there will always be a group of creators who will push that boundary and believe that it is their duty to do so. There will also be those that will adopt it especially as the status quo becomes increasingly less attractive. I'm personally more critical of all these crypto technologies that can be decentralized but have unnecessarily opted to maintain a centralized power structure. The vast majority of Token/Blockchain whitepapers I've read distribute a majority share of the power to the developers and/or investors and/or early adopters. In that sense it's less of goal of decentralization and more of enabling a new class division where a new group of people become the powerful by making a bet on which new system will be dominant. That's of course by design as it provides a major incentive for gathering a coalition of support and tractable adoption. Ultimately I think all these attempts at centralizing power just expose an internal instability in these systems that is ripe for disruption by a benevolent actor and currently these are feel like opportunistic cash grabs exploiting fools with the luckily fortunate benefit of having these technologies explored. I do believe all the right pieces are beginning to emerge each new cryptowhatever exploring and testing a new algorithm or consensus scheme or concept. At some point someone will put it all together to create a truly fair decentralized trust-less system that will have an internet-scale effect on our society. It will have the same effect on things like Bitcoin that Wikipedia had on printed encyclopedias, but with an truly incredible scope of change extending far beyond trade and communication. I also get the sense that the current systems will need a collapse to signal the defects. The allure of how lucrative it is to build it predominantly to your own benefit, especially given how willingly people are to accept it, is intense and probably even market efficient. It reminds me of that Frank Herbert quote: "All rebels are closet aristocrats. That’s why I can convert them so easily."