4 ms·
Please begin though, since I will never know why you disagree with me if you don't begin. "Protocols are for when there's no good centralized way of getting th
by volaski 14y ago
Please begin though, since I will never know why you disagree with me if you don't begin.
"Protocols are for when there's no good centralized way of getting things done" is actually not as crazy statement as you think, since it also means "If there's a good decentralized of way of doing something via protocols, you don't need a centralized approach".
What I meant by "getting things done" was efficiency. Decentralized and centralized systems each have their pros and cons, and efficiency is definitely not one of the pros of decentralized systems.
I do apologize for the incoherency in the post but I still don't think I didn't make any incorrect points. I think it would be if you could provide a counter example to my statements.
- erichocean 14y agoefficiency is definitely not one of the pros of decentralized systems The economy is a simple example of a system where decentralized == efficiency and centralized == inefficiency.
- volaski 14y agoGreat point! I agree, once a system becomes really huge it becomes hard to maintain and centralized system which used to be efficient becomes inefficient. However when the system CAN be maintained they are generally more efficient IMO. For example many developing countries go through a stage where the government makes a centralized plans. Even the U.S. went through this until the point where the scale itself brought forward inefficiency. However when it comes to an internet service like Twitter which CAN be maintained in a centralized manner--at least so far--I don't think decentralized approach has any benefit in terms of efficiency :)