3 ms·

>cryptocurrencies provide true, distributed, open-to-all decision making In what way? If they distribute decision-making power by who has the most currency, th

>cryptocurrencies provide true, distributed, open-to-all decision making In what way? If they distribute decision-making power by who has the most currency, then it's not really democratic.

swift532 8y ago
In the way that they are forkable and sufficiently large groups of people (because a very small number has little effect) breaking away, or just having that ability, can: - disincentivize those participating in network decisions from making them in bad faith - ditch the bad/evil network and form their own (and if they wish and can agree upon it, punish evil participants by not giving them equal money on the forked network which would theoretically become the main one in time)
- adamrezich 8y ago
  I used to believe in this before the Ethereum DAO thing happened, which made me realize: cryptocurrencies sell themselves on "decentralization" yet by the nature of the technology, anyone with access to sufficient resources can gain control of the system. There's nothing to stop this from happening at any point in the future of any cryptocurrency... and it's insane to think that any sort of currency that needs to be forked repeatedly and without warning will catch on with normal users. I'm no cryptocurrency hater or anything and the idea appeals to me at a deep level but I have a hard time seeing the tech as it currently exists working in practice in human society.
  - swift532 8y ago
    I think the instability of the past (contentious forks, DAO, anything else) are growing pains, but with enough time I believe it's possible that we as a sort of hive mind will settle on something more permanent and stable because, at one point, it'll be in noone's interest to fragment the network.
    - adamrezich 8y ago
      >because, at one point, it'll be in noone's interest to fragment the network It will always be in someone's interest to attempt to take control of a network, thus eventually causing opposition interest to fork the network, thus continued fragmentation and impenetrability w.r.t. normal users Basically, how do you solve the "government and/or private individual/group with enough wealth and/or access to resources can take control of a cryptocurrency by acquiring majority consensus" problem?
      - swift532 8y ago
        In proof of stake, that could be a problem (though there are mechanisms people claim can handle it). But in a proof of work currency, having majority consensus would mean they'd have to have the majority of miners - and even then they have to follow the rules because users' nodes will just reject invalid blocks. And in the worst of cases, people can fork away, and if they change the PoW algorithm while doing so - they'll also render the malicious actor's ASICs useless. I'm not saying this is fool proof, but the innovation of Bitcoin is precisely the system which is designed to resist these things (again, it's still very hard).
Obi_Juan_Kenobi 8y ago
Crypto was never designed to be democratic. From the very outset, it's explicit that the system is designed such that network security and correct-operation-as-designed was based on making that behavior optimal for those with the most to lose. In other words, miners make the most money when they operate the network as designed. Potentially malicious actors get less return behaving maliciously than they do otherwise. It's simple, dumb, brutal, and effective. What's important is that the design of the system allows anyone with an internet connection to participate, and is in that sense open to all. BTW, ownership of currency literally doesn't matter in a proof-of-work currency (other than the ability to affect trading price). Only in proof-of-stake systems is that a possibility, and it may be possible, through careful design, to avoid that.

>cryptocurrencies provide true, distributed, open-to-all decision making In what way? If they distribute decision-making power by who has the most currency, then it's not really democratic.

swift532 8y ago

In the way that they are forkable and sufficiently large groups of people (because a very small number has little effect) breaking away, or just having that ability, can: - disincentivize those participating in network decisions from making them in bad faith - ditch the bad/evil network and form their own (and if they wish and can agree upon it, punish evil participants by not giving them equal money on the forked network which would theoretically become the main one in time)

adamrezich 8y ago
I used to believe in this before the Ethereum DAO thing happened, which made me realize: cryptocurrencies sell themselves on "decentralization" yet by the nature of the technology, anyone with access to sufficient resources can gain control of the system. There's nothing to stop this from happening at any point in the future of any cryptocurrency... and it's insane to think that any sort of currency that needs to be forked repeatedly and without warning will catch on with normal users. I'm no cryptocurrency hater or anything and the idea appeals to me at a deep level but I have a hard time seeing the tech as it currently exists working in practice in human society.
- swift532 8y ago
  I think the instability of the past (contentious forks, DAO, anything else) are growing pains, but with enough time I believe it's possible that we as a sort of hive mind will settle on something more permanent and stable because, at one point, it'll be in noone's interest to fragment the network.
  - adamrezich 8y ago
    >because, at one point, it'll be in noone's interest to fragment the network It will always be in someone's interest to attempt to take control of a network, thus eventually causing opposition interest to fork the network, thus continued fragmentation and impenetrability w.r.t. normal users Basically, how do you solve the "government and/or private individual/group with enough wealth and/or access to resources can take control of a cryptocurrency by acquiring majority consensus" problem?
    - swift532 8y ago
      In proof of stake, that could be a problem (though there are mechanisms people claim can handle it). But in a proof of work currency, having majority consensus would mean they'd have to have the majority of miners - and even then they have to follow the rules because users' nodes will just reject invalid blocks. And in the worst of cases, people can fork away, and if they change the PoW algorithm while doing so - they'll also render the malicious actor's ASICs useless. I'm not saying this is fool proof, but the innovation of Bitcoin is precisely the system which is designed to resist these things (again, it's still very hard).

Obi_Juan_Kenobi 8y ago

Crypto was never designed to be democratic. From the very outset, it's explicit that the system is designed such that network security and correct-operation-as-designed was based on making that behavior optimal for those with the most to lose. In other words, miners make the most money when they operate the network as designed. Potentially malicious actors get less return behaving maliciously than they do otherwise. It's simple, dumb, brutal, and effective. What's important is that the design of the system allows anyone with an internet connection to participate, and is in that sense open to all. BTW, ownership of currency literally doesn't matter in a proof-of-work currency (other than the ability to affect trading price). Only in proof-of-stake systems is that a possibility, and it may be possible, through careful design, to avoid that.