4 ms·
> So the trust issue reverts into trusting that the creators + early adopters to not abuse the system. This is the exact argument used against single-authority
by robinhoode 12y ago
> So the trust issue reverts into trusting that the creators + early adopters to not abuse the system. This is the exact argument used against single-authority systems that the authority may abuse the system.
This is not exactly true. Look at Napster vs BitTorrent. Napster failed because it was a single-authority system. BitTorrent has succeeded because it is (mostly) decentralized. Trackers might go the way of the block chain in the not-too-distant future.
As far as abuse: It is up to early adopters to sniff out the scams. Unfortunately that is how free markets work. If those adopters stay and continue to promote the new system, it may have a chance with the populace at large. The small localization of failure is a feature not a bug.
- geoffwoo 12y agoI'm not trying to argue that decentralization is bad (Napster vs. BitTorrent is a great example). And there's a lot of cool technologies around decentralized / anonymized networking. My central point is that a trustless, distributed database i.e. the blockchain doesn't really offer practical advantages / new applications over what can be done today w/o such a database.
- robinhoode 12y agoYou are correct that "functionally" there may be no advantage. The value is not the functionality but the architecture. It is resilient to some very powerful attackers, both actual and theoretical. _That_ is where it derives it's power, not necessarily from functionality. If Bitcoin operated on a centralized database, as E-Gold did, it would have gotten shut down quickly (as E-Gold did). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-gold http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-gold