3 ms·

...a good old... centralized database? Welcome to the future, where pushing back with your opinion just helps reinforce the need for decentralization.

zach_garwood 4y ago
"Decentralization." You keep using this word, but I do not think it means what you think means.
jazzyjackson 4y ago
a blockchain is as centralized as it gets, a "single source of truth"
majormajor 4y ago
It's the difference between storage of data and consensus. You could have a centralized DB that believes X is true. You could have a distributed DB that believes X is true - or even that reflects that a bunch of people involved in the network believes that X is true. But what if X isn't true according to the consensus of the local societies you live in? Then it simply doesn't matter what sort of DB you use. In this "network states" discussion there seems to be a simple problem here: a network that crosses political boundaries can't solve certain things. So ok, it "crowdfunds territory around the world and eventually gains diplomatic recognition from pre-existing states" But... is that actually even realistic at all, or is it all fantasy? And even if you get there, your problem of border defense is INCREDIBLY difficult in your geo-distributed state. Traditional states appear to have some massive advantages in cases of any conflict.
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
a good old distributed network of centralized databases, one or more for each entity, that get reconciled at intervals. the network itself is already decentralized. interoperability and open protocols > immutable ledger (which is a centralized source of the truth) philosophically speaking a society where information is stored with no restriction but can be made available to other parties in an open and documented manner is more free than one where the "tables of the law" is one immutable and indisputable blockchain because the computer says so.

zach_garwood 4y ago

"Decentralization." You keep using this word, but I do not think it means what you think means.

jazzyjackson 4y ago

a blockchain is as centralized as it gets, a "single source of truth"

majormajor 4y ago

It's the difference between storage of data and consensus. You could have a centralized DB that believes X is true. You could have a distributed DB that believes X is true - or even that reflects that a bunch of people involved in the network believes that X is true. But what if X isn't true according to the consensus of the local societies you live in? Then it simply doesn't matter what sort of DB you use. In this "network states" discussion there seems to be a simple problem here: a network that crosses political boundaries can't solve certain things. So ok, it "crowdfunds territory around the world and eventually gains diplomatic recognition from pre-existing states" But... is that actually even realistic at all, or is it all fantasy? And even if you get there, your problem of border defense is INCREDIBLY difficult in your geo-distributed state. Traditional states appear to have some massive advantages in cases of any conflict.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago

a good old distributed network of centralized databases, one or more for each entity, that get reconciled at intervals. the network itself is already decentralized. interoperability and open protocols > immutable ledger (which is a centralized source of the truth) philosophically speaking a society where information is stored with no restriction but can be made available to other parties in an open and documented manner is more free than one where the "tables of the law" is one immutable and indisputable blockchain because the computer says so.