6 ms·
Decentralization doesn't have to mean anonymization. The real benefits lay in the lack of a middle man to take a cut and possibly slow down processing times.
by tmh88j 8y ago
Decentralization doesn't have to mean anonymization. The real benefits lay in the lack of a middle man to take a cut and possibly slow down processing times.
- Marazan 8y agoDecentralisation increases the number of middle men! Unless you are talking g pure peer to peer with no discovery service.
- colordrops 8y agoNot really. Pure peer to peer is always an option with truly decentralized systems, so you can always completely bypass the middle man. It's not really decentralized if it's not "pure" peer to peer.
- Marazan 8y agoBitcoin with only you and one other person is pretty useless. It's entire utility is predicated on a entire network of middlemen doing the mining.
- colordrops 8y agoJust because there are different roles on the network doesn't make it centralized. Furthermore you can set up a mining node yourself.
- Marazan 8y agoWhich adds a middleman! I think there is some serious misunderstanding of the relationship of middlemen and centralisation here.
- PeterisP 8y agoGiven the current Bitcoin processing fees and time, a decent centralized middleman could plausibly offer off-chain bulk transactions within their "network" that are faster and cheaper, and only periodically settle the totals on-chain.
- colordrops 8y agoCentralized systems have always been _technically_ superior to decentralized when it comes speed and fees, but the middlemen that control these systems have never proven themselves to have the self control needed to not interfere significantly in transactions.
- simias 8y agoWhat do you have in mind exactly? If by interfering you mean things like chargeback or denying transactions that appear fraudulent that's the point the parent was making, for most people those are useful services, not drawbacks.
- colordrops 8y agoNearly instant global transfers. They could provide these with the caveat of higher risk, but refuse to.
- PeterisP 8y agoThere are multiple centralized solutions that provide (among other services) nearly instant global transfers, Western Union is the first that comes to mind. However, most centralized solutions that provide nearly instant transfers focus on one market (say, Eurozone or USA) and so they're not global - so there's no single "they" that could provide these with the caveat of higher risk, and it's a flaw of decentralization of international banking; the delays for worldwide transfers are caused by lack of a centralized solution neccessitating multiple bilateral transfers between unrelated institutions. Where a centralized system exists (e.g. Eurozone Target2 system), customers can have nearly instant payments within that system if you're willing to pay for that.
- thisisit 8y agoBut then peer to peer is not always a good thing. Often times finding a peer is a big issue. An example is AirBnb. There were people on both sides who required this service. But it actually took a centralised service to actually get it working.
- madeofpalk 8y agoYou’re kidding, right? You’re commenting on this thread about Coinbase, one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges. Seems very centralised. I actually wonder (and I’m sure someone’s done the math), what would be the transaction cost and confirmation times of the Bitcoin network if it approached the number of transactions as the Mastercars or Visa networks?
- beaner 8y agoIt seems like he's thinking of where the technology has the potential to go, and you're limiting yourself to thinking about how it performs today.
- jstanley 8y agoThe benefit lies in the lack of a middle man who you have to ask for permission. I don't care if he takes a cut, I don't care if he slows down processing, but I care as soon as he starts saying "my bank doesn't allow your kind of business".