Are Profits More Important Than Decentralization?

[sdmathis]

One of the central tenets of cryptocurrency is the principle of decentralization. It seems, however, that more and more people are willing to trade the principle of decentralization for profits. Is it just me, or is the crypto culture shifting? Or are principles like decentralization that important to begin with?

[1715546224]

1715546224

[1715546224]

1715546224

[Biitcoin]

One of the central tenets of cryptocurrency is the principle of decentralization. It seems, however, that more and more people are willing to trade the principle of decentralization for profits. Is it just me, or is the crypto culture shifting? Or are principles like decentralization that important to begin with?

Indeed Crypto culture is shifting and I couldn't agree more with you.
It's seem like people don't really care anymore about their privacy and now using exchange that need ID & passport , same goes for low fees now people are using Debit cards which is the worst for what comes to fees (monthly or yearly or withraw on ATM) . Sooner or later govermeents will control 100% Cryptoo currencies and there is nothing we can do about it . because it's all about the "profit" and "money" right now .

[MicroGuy]

One of the central tenets of cryptocurrency is the principle of decentralization. It seems, however, that more and more people are willing to trade the principle of decentralization for profits. Is it just me, or is the crypto culture shifting? Or are principles like decentralization that important to begin with?

I think people need to eat and keep shelter over their heads, so profit seeking is never going away. And yes, for many it's probably more important than decentralization because "people can't eat decentralization." But like with all things, there must be balance.

The principle of decentralization is still a theory, since no one has managed to create a decentralized coin. Bitcoin was close, but in truth, the person that controls bitcoin.org (this person also owns an alert key) is the central authority and controller of Bitcoin, since he can not only announce updates inside the client but also make them available on the official Bitcoin website. The Federal Reserve is much more decentralized by comparison.

If someone where able to invent a decentralized coin, I think it would have a good chance of eventually surpassing Bitcoin in market share.

[sdmathis]

One of the central tenets of cryptocurrency is the principle of decentralization. It seems, however, that more and more people are willing to trade the principle of decentralization for profits. Is it just me, or is the crypto culture shifting? Or are principles like decentralization that important to begin with?

I think people need to eat and keep shelter over their heads, so profit seeking is never going away. And yes, for many it's probably more important than decentralization because "people can't eat decentralization." But like with all things, there must be balance.

The principle of decentralization is still a theory, since no one has managed to create a decentralized coin. Bitcoin was close, but in truth, the person that controls bitcoin.org (this person also owns an alert key) is the central authority and controller of Bitcoin, since he can not only announce updates inside the client but also make them available on the official Bitcoin website. The Federal Reserve is much more decentralized by comparison.

If someone where able to invent a decentralized coin, I think it would have a good chance of eventually surpassing Bitcoin in market share.

I have to agree that even Bitcoin isn't fully decentralized. Even Erik Voorhees admits that in some ways, Bitcoin has an element of centralization (market-based centralization) https://bitcoinmagazine.com/19133/bitcoin-truly-decentralized-yes-important/

[EvilDave]

Profits are nice, but decentralisation is essential.

Or at least as little centralisation as possible: Erik V makes a good point that coercive centralisation (when users are given no choice) is a very bad thing, but that market based centralisation (because users choose the best service/platform) is almost unavoidable.

[TheMage]

Tagging this for a future post because I am very passionate about this particular subject.


I will say in short terms, yes it seems 95% of the people out there say to hell with decentralization and cryptos.....as long as they can get their money out of it.


Also I believe this belongs in the general section not here.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Those who would give up essential Decentralization, to purchase a little temporary Profit, deserve neither Decentralization nor Profit.

[Rofo]

Almost every single demand of the community and indeed many BTC 'requirements' to go 'mainstream' (and make everyone billionaires am I right?) requires some form of centralization or placement of power/trust in an individual/group. Business, assets, insurance, protection, backing, accountability, leadership, responsibility, the list goes on.

History repeating itself.

[Newmine]

Profits are nice, but decentralisation is essential.

Or at least as little centralisation as possible: Erik V makes a good point that coercive centralisation (when users are given no choice) is a very bad thing, but that market based centralisation (because users choose the best service/platform) is almost unavoidable.

Well said.

I have been following Bitshares since it started and every three or four months they keep taking a step towards centralization. The last change they made/are making is licensing the actual code so the Developers can sell it to competitors and charge Bitshares holders for upgrades and third party plugins and on/off ramps. They have admitted all this and the Koolaid drinkers accept it, claiming it's better than someone taking the code and doing something better with it. Well if it's better, then it is deserving.

I used to be a fanboy and still hold a few shares, but man they went the opposite direction from when they sold to the investors back in November 2013.

I just wrote a post on their forum about their departure from a decentralized blockchain to a single point of failure in Cryptonomex, the company they created to own the code license.

Here is the path they took all in the name of profit. Apparently I am the only one screaming about the central control everyone is bought into. Some over there are even saying decentralization is over rated and will only alienate the crypto community which they say they don't need.

Bitshares was to be POW with a 10% premine sold to early investors and 10% to protoshares miners.

They decided to change to POS and sell 50% to investors and drop the other 50% on Protoshares. It was also established that they would take protoshares as a payment from investors thus giving them a free premine so to speak. Since every PTS would be worth 100's of BTS.

They then decided they should merge the multiple chains they were going to create so no other chain would do it and render the multi Bitshares chains weak on their own. They also decided to buy out PTS holders who were still mining and who donated for other chains that had been killed off for the merger. They decided to expand the supply by giving 100BTS for every PTS out there. Guess who owned 25% of the PTS at this point?

Then they decided to change from a deflationary model where BTS was getting destroyed, to an inflationary model creating more supply so the Developers could profit off the chain. In essence getting paid by the chain and BTS holders. They have 30 or so people sucking 4227 BTS per day each and only about 4 full time developers. The rest are large stake holders using the stake voting system to profit off the chain without having to buy any mining equipment. The rest are just liars and scammers selling snake oil and promising delivery dates on wallets and exchanges that come and go and nobody actually uses.

All this is repeatedly justified by profits. The only problem with profits is it's been hurting the average BTS holder who has no say because the 100 delegates have amassed huge control.

They have justified one entity to control the Bitshares code. A single point of failure and greed, and they still consider the project decentralized.

Sorry for the rant.

Go to bitsharestalk, see for yourself the mental gymnastics.

[EvilDave]

@newmine: I've been there. 
I've lost a lot of faith in BTS over the last few months. (not that I ever had enough faith to actually give Dan+Stan my hard earned cash, but still...)
My impression is of a good community/project that is being slowly pulled off the rails. 

[jeffthebaker]

One of the central tenets of cryptocurrency is the principle of decentralization. It seems, however, that more and more people are willing to trade the principle of decentralization for profits. Is it just me, or is the crypto culture shifting? Or are principles like decentralization that important to begin with?

The only reason to invest in, mine, and trade various altcoins is to turn a profit. If anyone cares about the core principles of cryptocurrency, then they stick to Bitcoin.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

One of the central tenets of cryptocurrency is the principle of decentralization. It seems, however, that more and more people are willing to trade the principle of decentralization for profits. Is it just me, or is the crypto culture shifting? Or are principles like decentralization that important to begin with?

The only reason to invest in, mine, and trade various altcoins is to turn a profit. If anyone cares about the core principles of cryptocurrency, then they stick to Bitcoin.

That statement couldn't be any more incorrect.

"One of the reasons Nxt is groundbreaking is because it gives the economy back to the people and re-establishes them as their own sovereigns over their destiny.  An economy is an expression of a political ideology.  Do not mistake us as just another cryptocurrency.  We are a movement."

[vaporware asset wizard]

what's more important ... a woman's body, or her mind?

tits get old and sag eventually .. an older woman's mind can still be very sexy ...

decentralization all the way!!!!

[sdmathis]

One of the central tenets of cryptocurrency is the principle of decentralization. It seems, however, that more and more people are willing to trade the principle of decentralization for profits. Is it just me, or is the crypto culture shifting? Or are principles like decentralization that important to begin with?

The only reason to invest in, mine, and trade various altcoins is to turn a profit. If anyone cares about the core principles of cryptocurrency, then they stick to Bitcoin.

Why do you think that Bitcoin is for those who believe in the core principles and altcoins aren't? There is some cutting edge development going on in with some altcoins, and there are some blatant scams happening in the world of Bitcoin. Just check out the scam accusation thread and see for yourself.

[Snail2]

A Ferengi bit/altcoiner without profit is no Ferengi bit/altcoiner at all .

I like when everybody talking about the importance of true decentralization and then most of the very same people are flocking to the most centralized, SEC/Fincen/whatever_ regulatory_body compatible exchanges and mining farms because of the better trading conditions .

[sdmathis]

A Ferengi bit/altcoiner without profit is no Ferengi bit/altcoiner at all .

I like when everybody talking about the importance of true decentralization and then most of the very same people are flocking to the most centralized, SEC/Fincen/whatever_ regulatory_body compatible exchanges and mining farms because of the better trading conditions .

That's why I'm asking the question. Decentralization is talked about, but when it comes to action, so many people take the centralized route.

[Netnox]

Money is certainly above decentralisation, money has been above anything, even human lives.

[Spoetnik]

that statement is probably true I bet.. but
we have no choice, there is no decentralized coin/system made we can switch to.

decentralization is critical to us moving forward with the technology of digital currencies.
problem being is we need a Satoshi to come along and marry the Problem with a viable Solution.
his work was genius.. few people can come up with such a lofty ambitious goal/idea then work out the logistics to make it happen.
and that is what we need.. someone(s) to figure out how it should be done (code wise)

[JohnnyBTCSeed]

that statement is probably true I bet.. but
we have no choice, there is no decentralized coin/system made we can switch to.

decentralization is critical to us moving forward with the technology of digital currencies.
problem being is we need a Satoshi to come along and marry the Problem with a viable Solution.
his work was genius.. few people can come up with such a lofty ambitious goal/idea then work out the logistics to make it happen.
and that is what we need.. someone(s) to figure out how it should be done (code wise)

Agreed.

However isn't there a satoshi quote out there where he explains that bitcoin wasnt meant to be decentralized, but rather distributed.  Give me a sec, ill go find it.

[JohnnyBTCSeed]

I'm just going to file this here. As bitcoin was never intended to be decentralized.

Let's take a look at what Satoshi ACTUALLY said back in 2010 about how he expected the network to operate:

(emphasis in bold added by me)

- snip -
Simplified Payment Verification is for lightweight client-only users who only do transactions and don't generate and don't participate in the node network.  They wouldn't need to download blocks, just the hash chain, which is currently about 2MB and very quick to verify (less than a second to verify the whole chain). If the network becomes very large, like over 100,000 nodes, this is what we'll use to allow common users to do transactions without being full blown nodes.  At that stage, most users should start running client-only software and only the specialist server farms keep running full network nodes, kind of like how the usenet network has consolidated.
- snip -

- snip -
I anticipate there will never be more than 100K nodes, probably less.  It will reach an equilibrium where it's not worth it for more nodes to join in.  The rest will be lightweight clients, which could be millions.

At equilibrium size, many nodes will be server farms with one or two network nodes that feed the rest of the farm over a LAN.

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale.  That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server.  The design supports letting users just be users.  The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be.  Those few nodes will be big server farms.  The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.
- snip -