4 ms·

First, you're assuming everyone is out for the same thing. There are and will be centralized blockchains and services that meet specific needs. That's okay. Se

First, you're assuming everyone is out for the same thing. There are and will be centralized blockchains and services that meet specific needs. That's okay. Second, it is not always a bad thing to have one fewer level of government, which is what centralization brings. A decentralized platform still operating within national regulations is like not having an HOA on your home. Not always a benefit, but usually, and especially over time.

chris_wot 5y ago
I’m sorry, but what is the point if a centralised blockchain? The entire point of a blockchain is that it is decentralised!
- d0gbread 5y ago
  Centralized and decentralized are far too broad a term to make a sweeping generalization at that level.
grey-area 5y ago
No, I'm not assuming that, I'm taking the arguments above about avoiding statist control of transactions at face value. 1. A centralised blockchain is a database with bad performance. 2. But that's my point - blockchain doesn't sidestep government and regulation as you and many proponents assume. In the short term maybe, while government catches up. In the long term, all your transactions are in public and can be inspected retrospectively, so good luck avoiding taxes or regulations with it if people actually started using it as a currency. It cannot reduce government because it does not replace government, it's aiming at the wrong target and just hand waving away problems of power which are central to control of money.
- d0gbread 5y ago
  I won't presume to know if there's a real use case for #1 -- I agree that a centralized blockchain likely makes little sense, especially in this moment in time. But I would absolutely not be shocked if there is a use-case for "a database with bad performance" that's governed by one, or a group of, entities. A way to maintain transparency, vote on improvements, etc but only within, say, automotive, or whatever. There are only going to be growing use cases for data, ownership, privacy, and transparency use cases. For #2, I think you're missing the point but apologize if you're not. However, I didn't say, and very few are saying, that blockchain sidesteps government and regulation. What I and many others are saying is that it sidesteps the additional layer of government that is a business entity. If you want to earn yield on BlockFi or Celsius for example, you are beholden to TOS and decisions in ways that are critically different than engaging similar functionality via a dapp. My core point is that both can and likely will co-exist, because one is not inherently better than the other; the pros and cons will hit differently depending on the use case.

chris_wot 5y ago

I’m sorry, but what is the point if a centralised blockchain? The entire point of a blockchain is that it is decentralised!

d0gbread 5y ago
Centralized and decentralized are far too broad a term to make a sweeping generalization at that level.

grey-area 5y ago

No, I'm not assuming that, I'm taking the arguments above about avoiding statist control of transactions at face value. 1. A centralised blockchain is a database with bad performance. 2. But that's my point - blockchain doesn't sidestep government and regulation as you and many proponents assume. In the short term maybe, while government catches up. In the long term, all your transactions are in public and can be inspected retrospectively, so good luck avoiding taxes or regulations with it if people actually started using it as a currency. It cannot reduce government because it does not replace government, it's aiming at the wrong target and just hand waving away problems of power which are central to control of money.

d0gbread 5y ago
I won't presume to know if there's a real use case for #1 -- I agree that a centralized blockchain likely makes little sense, especially in this moment in time. But I would absolutely not be shocked if there is a use-case for "a database with bad performance" that's governed by one, or a group of, entities. A way to maintain transparency, vote on improvements, etc but only within, say, automotive, or whatever. There are only going to be growing use cases for data, ownership, privacy, and transparency use cases. For #2, I think you're missing the point but apologize if you're not. However, I didn't say, and very few are saying, that blockchain sidesteps government and regulation. What I and many others are saying is that it sidesteps the additional layer of government that is a business entity. If you want to earn yield on BlockFi or Celsius for example, you are beholden to TOS and decisions in ways that are critically different than engaging similar functionality via a dapp. My core point is that both can and likely will co-exist, because one is not inherently better than the other; the pros and cons will hit differently depending on the use case.