4 ms·

Decentralization is super hard to achieve in anything other than a toy universe. "Proof of humanity" in theory is cool, but humans can be bought. Power will alw

Decentralization is super hard to achieve in anything other than a toy universe. "Proof of humanity" in theory is cool, but humans can be bought. Power will always tend to centralization when money exists. It's obvious when the decentralization key is computing power, as money buys more computers and results in centralized control. Even if unique brain patterns becomes the decentralization key, nothing stops two unique people from colluding and voting in the same direction. Nothing stops one person from purchasing the voting power of another person. I think Vitalik even said once that the only reason for small fish to buy governance tokens is in expectation of the price going up, and hoping they can be sold later to a larger fish, where the actual network is governed by a few. I don't see how "proof of humanity" is any different than this, since nothing stops collusion or other vectors for "vote buying". Centralization infects the very roots of decentralization. This is not an easy problem, and Bitcoin doesn't solve it, and no token out there currently solves it. There might not be any solution in the real world, where humans can communicate freely.

x-complexity 4y ago
> Decentralization is super hard to achieve in anything other than a toy universe. "Proof of humanity" in theory is cool, but humans can be bought. Power will always tend to centralization when money exists. It's obvious when the decentralization key is computing power, as money buys more computers and results in centralized control. Even if unique brain patterns becomes the decentralization key, nothing stops two unique people from colluding and voting in the same direction. Nothing stops one person from purchasing the voting power of another person. > I think Vitalik even said once that the only reason for small fish to buy governance tokens is in expectation of the price going up, and hoping they can be sold later to a larger fish, where the actual network is governed by a few. I don't see how "proof of humanity" is any different than this, since nothing stops collusion or other vectors for "vote buying". Centralization infects the very roots of decentralization. This is not an easy problem, and Bitcoin doesn't solve it, and no token out there currently solves it. There might not be any solution in the real world, where humans can communicate freely. ---------- > Decentralization is super hard to achieve in anything other than a toy universe. > Power will always tend to centralization when money exists. > It's obvious when the decentralization key is computing power, as money buys more computers and results in centralized control. > Nothing stops one person from purchasing the voting power of another person. > Centralization infects the very roots of decentralization. > This is not an easy problem, and Bitcoin doesn't solve it, and no token out there currently solves it. > There might not be any solution in the real world, where humans can communicate freely. The parent comment is likely right, but it's engaging in a "it's not 100% perfect, so it's useless" fallacy: Just because we can't get 100% of the way there doesn't mean that the effort shouldn't be done in the first place. The Bittorrent protocol is a good example of this, as the protocol's not perfect either, relying on centralized trackers for fast peering. Still, that didn't mean that the protocol couldn't improve, with Mainline DHT eventually being developed for the protocol. Even though it's still slower than a centralized tracker, it does its assigned job well & to great success. Were such a viewpoint to be transplanted towards the Bittorrent protocol before DHT's creation, the parent would've likely viewed trackers to be "un-decentralizable" & therefore a waste of time. Attempts at decentralizing trackers would've been seen as a futile effort, as "they'll never be as efficient as centralized trackers". In general, no working system is ever 100% perfect, so why is such an attitude still being projected upon all open-source projects? It's likely that 100% decentralization will never be achieved, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't aim for at least 50%. The alternative is a nihilistic "we'll always need centralization" dystopia, & that fundamentally doesn't sit well with me all.
- throwaway4837 4y ago
  I never once said it was useless, I said decentralization is a great myth of the modern times. Blockchain technology could be useful even if decentralization is a facade.
landemva 4y ago
> the decentralization key is computing power Ethereum no longer uses proof of work (computing power). Also, neither BTC nor ETH have a governance token.
- latchkey 4y ago
  Correct, for block generation. The hard reality though is that ASICs are coming back to ETH (Vitalik has hinted at it in his own posts [0]) and at the end of the day, ETH needs compute. [0] https://vitalik.ca/general/2022/08/04/zkevm.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2022/08/04/zkevm.html
  - shakow 4y ago
    That's hard to say; the zkEVM landscape is currently moving very fast with already three main contenders in the ring, and performances are being gained there and there. Maybe in the end ASICs will be required, maybe they will be used as an intermediary solution, but there is no inescapable requirement on the long term for them yet. By this, I mean that the current use of compute power is not seen as a feature, but as a regrettable side-effect of current algorithms, that is being worked on to reduce as much as can be.
    - latchkey 4y ago
      It isn't about if they are needed, or not. If there are financial incentives and efficiencies to be gained, they will be created.
      - shakow 4y ago
        But these financial incentives depend on whether algorithmic improvements will be enough to make do without them.
        latchkey 4y ago
        Yes, it is an interesting feedback loop and I'll tell you... there are a lot more than 3 main contenders in the ring. Looking over the spreadsheet tracking all of this, it is closer to 20. You probably just haven't heard of them, yet.

x-complexity 4y ago

> Decentralization is super hard to achieve in anything other than a toy universe. "Proof of humanity" in theory is cool, but humans can be bought. Power will always tend to centralization when money exists. It's obvious when the decentralization key is computing power, as money buys more computers and results in centralized control. Even if unique brain patterns becomes the decentralization key, nothing stops two unique people from colluding and voting in the same direction. Nothing stops one person from purchasing the voting power of another person. > I think Vitalik even said once that the only reason for small fish to buy governance tokens is in expectation of the price going up, and hoping they can be sold later to a larger fish, where the actual network is governed by a few. I don't see how "proof of humanity" is any different than this, since nothing stops collusion or other vectors for "vote buying". Centralization infects the very roots of decentralization. This is not an easy problem, and Bitcoin doesn't solve it, and no token out there currently solves it. There might not be any solution in the real world, where humans can communicate freely. ---------- > Decentralization is super hard to achieve in anything other than a toy universe. > Power will always tend to centralization when money exists. > It's obvious when the decentralization key is computing power, as money buys more computers and results in centralized control. > Nothing stops one person from purchasing the voting power of another person. > Centralization infects the very roots of decentralization. > This is not an easy problem, and Bitcoin doesn't solve it, and no token out there currently solves it. > There might not be any solution in the real world, where humans can communicate freely. The parent comment is likely right, but it's engaging in a "it's not 100% perfect, so it's useless" fallacy: Just because we can't get 100% of the way there doesn't mean that the effort shouldn't be done in the first place. The Bittorrent protocol is a good example of this, as the protocol's not perfect either, relying on centralized trackers for fast peering. Still, that didn't mean that the protocol couldn't improve, with Mainline DHT eventually being developed for the protocol. Even though it's still slower than a centralized tracker, it does its assigned job well & to great success. Were such a viewpoint to be transplanted towards the Bittorrent protocol before DHT's creation, the parent would've likely viewed trackers to be "un-decentralizable" & therefore a waste of time. Attempts at decentralizing trackers would've been seen as a futile effort, as "they'll never be as efficient as centralized trackers". In general, no working system is ever 100% perfect, so why is such an attitude still being projected upon all open-source projects? It's likely that 100% decentralization will never be achieved, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't aim for at least 50%. The alternative is a nihilistic "we'll always need centralization" dystopia, & that fundamentally doesn't sit well with me all.

throwaway4837 4y ago
I never once said it was useless, I said decentralization is a great myth of the modern times. Blockchain technology could be useful even if decentralization is a facade.

landemva 4y ago

> the decentralization key is computing power Ethereum no longer uses proof of work (computing power). Also, neither BTC nor ETH have a governance token.

latchkey 4y ago
Correct, for block generation. The hard reality though is that ASICs are coming back to ETH (Vitalik has hinted at it in his own posts [0]) and at the end of the day, ETH needs compute. [0] https://vitalik.ca/general/2022/08/04/zkevm.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2022/08/04/zkevm.html
- shakow 4y ago
  That's hard to say; the zkEVM landscape is currently moving very fast with already three main contenders in the ring, and performances are being gained there and there. Maybe in the end ASICs will be required, maybe they will be used as an intermediary solution, but there is no inescapable requirement on the long term for them yet. By this, I mean that the current use of compute power is not seen as a feature, but as a regrettable side-effect of current algorithms, that is being worked on to reduce as much as can be.
  - latchkey 4y ago
    It isn't about if they are needed, or not. If there are financial incentives and efficiencies to be gained, they will be created.
    - shakow 4y ago
      But these financial incentives depend on whether algorithmic improvements will be enough to make do without them.
      - latchkey 4y ago
        Yes, it is an interesting feedback loop and I'll tell you... there are a lot more than 3 main contenders in the ring. Looking over the spreadsheet tracking all of this, it is closer to 20. You probably just haven't heard of them, yet.