4 ms·

I think people care about decentralization only to an extent. They really just want to it to be decentralized enough that the SEC or CFPB won't shut it down. I

I think people care about decentralization only to an extent. They really just want to it to be decentralized enough that the SEC or CFPB won't shut it down. I call this 'plausible decentralization'. If you try to run an unlicensed exchange without KYC on AWS, you will get shut down pretty quick. I think the government will look at Solana and say its too complicated to shut down.

api 5y ago
That only works as long as the government stays clueless. If Solana or Angorand or whatever gets big enough and the government employs some tech-savvy people to examine it, they'll figure out that there is a subset of blessed validators out there that could be legally compelled to cease and desist and that this would cripple the network. That wouldn't really work for Bitcoin or other PoW coins. They could shut down big mines and new ones would pop up. Of course they could instead invest a lot in both seizing mines and building their own and 51% the network... that's always a risk and any large enough nation state could do it.
- baby 5y ago
  It’s the same for Bitcoin btw. The government can just forbid any VASP to accept bitcoin and to authorize on/off ramp and trades involving bitcoin. ISPs could also block miners and bitcoin websites. The coin is censorship resistant… to a certain extent. Maybe there’ll always be someone running it, and there’ll be a black market for on/off ramp, but it will severely cripple the adoption.
  - SilasX 5y ago
    True, but that failure mode doesn't exploit the network's centralization and is unrelated to how centralized it is.
    - ivalm 5y ago
      So it means centralization might not be too relevant to the government a ability to ban.
  - tudorw 5y ago
    'it will severely cripple the adoption', I'm not sure it's so straightforward as that, if large numbers of governments take an authoritarian stance on independent global currencies is there not a possibility that, while impacting network efficiency, it might underpin a new found desire and need for said independent global currency and instead drive adoption of currencies that have this resilience?
    - baby 5y ago
      I think it’s worth than that for bitcoin as bitcoin relies on a connected network for security. The risk of forks is too high without that. For other cryptocurrencies based on BFT at least the network would come to a stop and safety wouldn’t be violated (no double spending).
- SilasX 5y ago
  Plus, the miners are in different countries that don't obey each other's court orders.
- siwatanejo 5y ago
  > ... any large enough nation state could do it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncPyMUfNyVM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncPyMUfNyVM
encryptluks2 5y ago
I don't think they really care, especially once they are invested. They may care enough to do minimum research before investing in a token, but once they are invested it is like watching football. Algorand claims to be decentralized, but relies on gatekept relays and a centralized domain. If you bring this up, it is like a cult where how dare you question anything about the coin we've invested in.
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  The government has been warning about investing in crypto for a while now.
TimJRobinson 5y ago
A big risk I'm concerned about is say some whistleblower posts some classified material to the Solana Blockchain, that the US government wants removed. Does Solana have the ability to roll back the chain or remove specific pieces of information from it? If so, where is the line of what they will / won't remove? I fear we get into a Facebook like situation where nobody is happy where that line is drawn. Could legitimate projects be shut down because a government has deemed them illegal because they aren't complying with regulations?
- x4e 5y ago
  > Does Solana have the ability to roll back the chain or remove specific pieces of information from it? Well potentially if enough validators forked the chain before the material was added and were able to build a longer chain than the one with the classified material, but even then it would be pointless as the previous chain still exists and will have been distributed to every node. The question is, why would they want to remove it? Solana is a global blockchain, not a US government entity. If they were to abide by US government requests, it would be only fair to also abide by the requests of other governments - but what if North Korea wanted information removed? As you said, where do we draw the line over what is a "valid" request? And more importantly, who draws the line? There is no single Solana entity, it is a group of validators who would decide this. Achieving consensus on something like this would never happen, especially among a group of people who are trying to be resistant to government censorship.
skinnymuch 5y ago
I love your “plausible decentralization” term. I tag and organize content, arguments, trends. “Plausible X” is a great categorization.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
> If you try to run an unlicensed exchange without KYC on AWS, you will get shut down pretty quick. The next step in cryptocurrency technology is to decentralize the exchanges themselves. Ideally it should be impossible to shut them down, regulate them or even understand what's going on. Governments will either give up or become tyrants in the process of fighting increasingly subversive technology. We'll find their limits.
- Growling_owl 5y ago
  You can't. On and off ramps for fiat are necessary and government would just go after the bank or blacklist the SWIFT code of the bank which is providing services to exchanges.
- nvdr 5y ago
  Almost there.. each network has its own decentralized exchange where you can swap and buy tokens. We are just missing contracts for derivatives such as futures and leverage trading.

api 5y ago

That only works as long as the government stays clueless. If Solana or Angorand or whatever gets big enough and the government employs some tech-savvy people to examine it, they'll figure out that there is a subset of blessed validators out there that could be legally compelled to cease and desist and that this would cripple the network. That wouldn't really work for Bitcoin or other PoW coins. They could shut down big mines and new ones would pop up. Of course they could instead invest a lot in both seizing mines and building their own and 51% the network... that's always a risk and any large enough nation state could do it.

baby 5y ago
It’s the same for Bitcoin btw. The government can just forbid any VASP to accept bitcoin and to authorize on/off ramp and trades involving bitcoin. ISPs could also block miners and bitcoin websites. The coin is censorship resistant… to a certain extent. Maybe there’ll always be someone running it, and there’ll be a black market for on/off ramp, but it will severely cripple the adoption.
- SilasX 5y ago
  True, but that failure mode doesn't exploit the network's centralization and is unrelated to how centralized it is.
  - ivalm 5y ago
    So it means centralization might not be too relevant to the government a ability to ban.
- tudorw 5y ago
  'it will severely cripple the adoption', I'm not sure it's so straightforward as that, if large numbers of governments take an authoritarian stance on independent global currencies is there not a possibility that, while impacting network efficiency, it might underpin a new found desire and need for said independent global currency and instead drive adoption of currencies that have this resilience?
  - baby 5y ago
    I think it’s worth than that for bitcoin as bitcoin relies on a connected network for security. The risk of forks is too high without that. For other cryptocurrencies based on BFT at least the network would come to a stop and safety wouldn’t be violated (no double spending).
SilasX 5y ago
Plus, the miners are in different countries that don't obey each other's court orders.
siwatanejo 5y ago
> ... any large enough nation state could do it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncPyMUfNyVM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncPyMUfNyVM

encryptluks2 5y ago

I don't think they really care, especially once they are invested. They may care enough to do minimum research before investing in a token, but once they are invested it is like watching football. Algorand claims to be decentralized, but relies on gatekept relays and a centralized domain. If you bring this up, it is like a cult where how dare you question anything about the coin we've invested in.

NicoJuicy 5y ago
The government has been warning about investing in crypto for a while now.

TimJRobinson 5y ago

A big risk I'm concerned about is say some whistleblower posts some classified material to the Solana Blockchain, that the US government wants removed. Does Solana have the ability to roll back the chain or remove specific pieces of information from it? If so, where is the line of what they will / won't remove? I fear we get into a Facebook like situation where nobody is happy where that line is drawn. Could legitimate projects be shut down because a government has deemed them illegal because they aren't complying with regulations?

x4e 5y ago
> Does Solana have the ability to roll back the chain or remove specific pieces of information from it? Well potentially if enough validators forked the chain before the material was added and were able to build a longer chain than the one with the classified material, but even then it would be pointless as the previous chain still exists and will have been distributed to every node. The question is, why would they want to remove it? Solana is a global blockchain, not a US government entity. If they were to abide by US government requests, it would be only fair to also abide by the requests of other governments - but what if North Korea wanted information removed? As you said, where do we draw the line over what is a "valid" request? And more importantly, who draws the line? There is no single Solana entity, it is a group of validators who would decide this. Achieving consensus on something like this would never happen, especially among a group of people who are trying to be resistant to government censorship.

skinnymuch 5y ago

I love your “plausible decentralization” term. I tag and organize content, arguments, trends. “Plausible X” is a great categorization.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

> If you try to run an unlicensed exchange without KYC on AWS, you will get shut down pretty quick. The next step in cryptocurrency technology is to decentralize the exchanges themselves. Ideally it should be impossible to shut them down, regulate them or even understand what's going on. Governments will either give up or become tyrants in the process of fighting increasingly subversive technology. We'll find their limits.

Growling_owl 5y ago
You can't. On and off ramps for fiat are necessary and government would just go after the bank or blacklist the SWIFT code of the bank which is providing services to exchanges.
nvdr 5y ago
Almost there.. each network has its own decentralized exchange where you can swap and buy tokens. We are just missing contracts for derivatives such as futures and leverage trading.