Centralization vs. decentralization in society and the role of the blockchain

[Notcalculator]

That is the society in which we currently live: Power is in the hands of a few and where the social structure is based on depositing trust in guarantor and centralized organisms, outside of them, is unthinkable. Politics, laws, FREEDOM, communications, TRUST, INTEGRITY, HONESTY, BUSINESS, production and distribution, at the speed of electrons, in the hands of the people, and not only of authorities. Centralization is inefficient, bureaucratic, and concentrates power in a minority elite. However, an analogous society was required for our evolution, but it is no longer necessary in the digital world where cleverly used technology returns power to people, and generates trust and cohesion in a more agile and effective way.

Society 3.0 does not need oppressive entities that limit its action, by itself it regulates itself and discards what does not allow its development. This is blockchain.

In Switzerland, there is a government of course, but when they want to introduce a new law, regulation, etc, do you know what they do? A referendum and every citizen is welcome to give their vote on a particular proposal to say yes or no. They have a referendum on almost anything.
So a society without a "Power is in the hands of a few" is possible, but if the citizens don't really care then there is not much to do

BTW, I just finished to read the article on futurism.com posted in the OP, it's a very good article to read.

Im not familiar with the process in Switzerland so i dont know how effective that is in practice. It sounds good though.
In other countries, i think that system is somewhat implemented through democracy. People vote for politicians who they think would be a good representative for their interests. But that system is flawed. It reality policies still reflect the best interest of the top powerful people. Trump's new taxation is evident to this.

A fair referundum might solve this. In such a way that each person's interest is equally represented. This might work in a rich country where the middle class is majority. If something like this is implemented in a poor country, extreme socialist laws might occur in favor of the poor majority. I know that sounds kind. In a perfect world, i want laws that favor them but the reality of the situation is money comes from the higher classes. If we implement policies that kill the high classes the whole system will collapse. There must be a balanced policies for both ends of the spectrum

[dado7]

In Switzerland, there is a government of course, but when they want to introduce a new law, regulation, etc, do you know what they do? A referendum and every citizen is welcome to give their vote on a particular proposal to say yes or no. They have a referendum on almost anything.
So a society without a "Power is in the hands of a few" is possible, but if the citizens don't really care then there is not much to do

BTW, I just finished to read the article on futurism.com posted in the OP, it's a very good article to read.

That is called "liquid democracy" and I am a strong supporter. During my short spell into politics (just wanted to make a difference) I was really advocating this system. The only problem is that in our country people are mainly criticizing everything so there is a danger that it would put a break on all progress. But I believe it would change if Government showed some good moves. Also, I don't see any harm in trying if the current system is not showing good results.

By the way, a little off-topic, I always admired Switzerland for being neutral and saying "screw you" to all that war-hunger human stupidities.

Would you mind sending me a link to the article, I wasn't able to find it?

[DrYe5]

In Switzerland, there is a government of course, but when they want to introduce a new law, regulation, etc, do you know what they do? A referendum and every citizen is welcome to give their vote on a particular proposal to say yes or no. They have a referendum on almost anything.
So a society without a "Power is in the hands of a few" is possible, but if the citizens don't really care then there is not much to do

BTW, I just finished to read the article on futurism.com posted in the OP, it's a very good article to read.

That is called "liquid democracy" and I am a strong supporter. During my short spell into politics (just wanted to make a difference) I was really advocating this system. The only problem is that in our country people are mainly criticizing everything so there is a danger that it would put a break on all progress. But I believe it would change if Government showed some good moves. Also, I don't see any harm in trying if the current system is not showing good results.

By the way, a little off-topic, I always admired Switzerland for being neutral and saying "screw you" to all that war-hunger human stupidities.

Would you mind sending me a link to the article, I wasn't able to find it?

Blockchain technology is the way to empower the people to bypass centralised financial and government institutions, leading the way to true sovereignty and freedom.Models of decentralised societies simply shifted power from one layer to another.

[Victor$]

I would not say that economic phenomena are all assumptions. For example. The phenomenon of demand and supply. They are really powerful and explain how the things happen in the real world.
The economic model is a sum of different phenomena and as you noted there is not "the best one". Each of the old models can be applied to a different society and wouldn't necessarily work on the other. However we can study why something worked out and something did not and based on that make new economic models, always having in mind what the current society needs.

The power of the greedy is what the problem is in every system. They will always find a way to make things their way. Hence I made an argument that blockchain and smart contracts can help stop it from happening with some in-built interventionism.

Yes, there are such thing as true in phenomena but most of it are not what really happens to our economy. I say it is all assumptions because it can be revised or modified by the new theories. That's why it is call as phenomena, there are certain times that it happens but not at all.
I agreed to you that greediness of the power is the real problem of our economy. The improper distribution of goods and services for the people are the main problems of our society. Every economic model as its own weaknesses and we just need to acquire each of it in order for us to survive.

It is fact that now everyone is in search of power so if power is the only thing then bitcoin is the best because it is now the most high and expensive currency. Not all people make this as an assumption and phenomena. If bitcoin will be use as a saving then it will rise again in price and value importance of bitcoin is main thing today, if high acceptance will be allotted in bitcoin then more people will trust bitcoin . Weakness that makes bitcoin low is the panic selling so if they will trust bitcoin and hold for the long time they will get profit.

[dado7]

It is fact that now everyone is in search of power so if power is the only thing then bitcoin is the best because it is now the most high and expensive currency. Not all people make this as an assumption and phenomena. If bitcoin will be use as a saving then it will rise again in price and value importance of bitcoin is main thing today, if high acceptance will be allotted in bitcoin then more people will trust bitcoin . Weakness that makes bitcoin low is the panic selling so if they will trust bitcoin and hold for the long time they will get profit.

Yes, but searching for power means support centralization, not decentralization. It means that you are in this for the wrong reasons. I am searching for equality, not power.

[LeGaulois]

In Switzerland, there is a government of course, but when they want to introduce a new law, regulation, etc, do you know what they do? A referendum and every citizen is welcome to give their vote on a particular proposal to say yes or no. They have a referendum on almost anything.
So a society without a "Power is in the hands of a few" is possible, but if the citizens don't really care then there is not much to do

BTW, I just finished to read the article on futurism.com posted in the OP, it's a very good article to read.

That is called "liquid democracy" and I am a strong supporter. During my short spell into politics (just wanted to make a difference) I was really advocating this system. The only problem is that in our country people are mainly criticizing everything so there is a danger that it would put a break on all progress. But I believe it would change if Government showed some good moves. Also, I don't see any harm in trying if the current system is not showing good results.

By the way, a little off-topic, I always admired Switzerland for being neutral and saying "screw you" to all that war-hunger human stupidities.

Would you mind sending me a link to the article, I wasn't able to find it?

Thanks, I didn't know about a "liquid democracy" I checked it on Wikipedia.
I am confused, I am not sure what link article you're asking. I was referring to the link you posted https://futurism.com/sponsored-how-centralization-paralyzing-society/

I am not Swiss but I learned about Switzerland's system by watching a documentary about the economy there. I couldn't imagine such system is still possible lol. I was so surprised that I watched the documentary 3 times. The politic and economy is awesome there, it has surely some weakness but every country has some. When it's about foreign affairs policy and international relations the country is very smart.
If you notice you never hear about the country involved in shady practices, behaviors, etc... "Mind your business" works very well for this country lol

[MoonHodler]

decentralization will promote more trust in transactions, which will improve many sectors. centralization offers accountability.

[13abyknight]

Centralization is pushing power away from the hands of people and placing it in the hands of governments which has known to misuse them in one way or the other. While the focus is on a system which works independent of trust, not requiring any sort of third party intervention, countries would never approve of this as they would find it to be a loophole for tax evasion by converting assets into digital currencies which is hard to trace. With that being said, nobody ever has disapproved the use of blockchain technology which is like the tiara of creation which came along with Bitcoin, as banks and firms are making use of it today.

[markj113]

I think Bitcoin is less decentralised than mainstream currencies.

A small number of people hold a large % of coins.
A small number of pools control the hashing power.
A small number of manufacturers control ASIC manufacture.
A small number of exchanges control price (through bots and price fixing in my opinion)

[Notcalculator]

A small number of people hold a large % of coins.
A small number of pools control the hashing power.
A small number of manufacturers control ASIC manufacture.
A small number of exchanges control price (through bots and price fixing in my opinion)

True. But the same is true with mainstream currency. Thus, we have banks that are "too big to fail" and "too big to jail". They are untouchable.
But most problems with bitcoin can be solved by science. The blockchain is growing and everyday few few hashing power can handle it. But there are still manufacturers out there, that are working to make hardware cheaper.

Lastly, bitcoin isnt even at mainstream adoption. Whatever problem we are facing now, there is still hope.
 

[dado7]

Thanks, I didn't know about a "liquid democracy" I checked it on Wikipedia.
I am confused, I am not sure what link article you're asking. I was referring to the link you posted https://futurism.com/sponsored-how-centralization-paralyzing-society/

I am not Swiss but I learned about Switzerland's system by watching a documentary about the economy there. I couldn't imagine such system is still possible lol. I was so surprised that I watched the documentary 3 times. The politic and economy is awesome there, it has surely some weakness but every country has some. When it's about foreign affairs policy and international relations the country is very smart.
If you notice you never hear about the country involved in shady practices, behaviors, etc... "Mind your business" works very well for this country lol

About the article, I apologize, my mind was elsewhere obviously, I misunderstood you. I am glad you liked it.
Do you remember a name of that documentary, I would like to watch it?

decentralization will promote more trust in transactions, which will improve many sectors. centralization offers accountability.

Ugh, I totally disagree. Centralization would function if it offered accountability. Even a despotism would function in a good way if there was ever a totally moral, accountable and inerrable despot (there are obvious advantages in the process of fast decision making, but the required persons simply don't exist).  Politicians are a great example - they do lots of things for their benefit only, yet don't offer any accountability nor they bear any consequences for their actions (except for frauds, for which, if ever detected, they have to undergo a criminal prosecution).

Centralization is pushing power away from the hands of people and placing it in the hands of governments which has known to misuse them in one way or the other. While the focus is on a system which works independent of trust, not requiring any sort of third party intervention, countries would never approve of this as they would find it to be a loophole for tax evasion by converting assets into digital currencies which is hard to trace. With that being said, nobody ever has disapproved the use of blockchain technology which is like the tiara of creation which came along with Bitcoin, as banks and firms are making use of it today.

Yes, but the Governments make the same mistake as we all do when we ignore the power of the critical mass. And this time maybe we have a possibility to forever alter the course of history by adopting the technology which "they" cannot control.

I think Bitcoin is less decentralised than mainstream currencies.

A small number of people hold a large % of coins.
A small number of pools control the hashing power.
A small number of manufacturers control ASIC manufacture.
A small number of exchanges control price (through bots and price fixing in my opinion)

Those are the problems that need to be addressed and dealt with. Blockchain is still a young technology and there is a plenty of time to do that. As I am proclaiming through the whole thread - some kind of interventionism is necessary.

[jassanpary]

Decentralization is a better choice in society, too much of centralization hampers the system just taking the example of bitcoin only can tell as bitcoin is decentralized currency with lot of advantages. So I would prefer for decentralization over centralization.

[dado7]

Decentralization is a better choice in society, too much of centralization hampers the system just taking the example of bitcoin only can tell as bitcoin is decentralized currency with lot of advantages. So I would prefer for decentralization over centralization.

Hampering actually means restricting movement. Decentralisation is also restricting movement because it is making decision making slower. However, there are ways to improve the decision-making process and I got what you wanted to say....this was just for the sake of the argument.

[AIRDROPSQUAD]

Well, I can say decentralization is giving more benefits to the society. I can give an example such as a torrent technology. Until now, internet users still using this torrent technology. We can share anything files without boundaries.

Centralization tends to be abusing power. Using centralization, some individual could control many people live. I could give an example of a Facebook case, which selling our data. Facebook using our behavior and personal info to targeting ads https://www.recode.net/2018/4/11/17177842/facebook-advertising-ads-explained-mark-zuckerberg

[dado7]

Well, I can say decentralization is giving more benefits to the society. I can give an example such as a torrent technology. Until now, internet users still using this torrent technology. We can share anything files without boundaries.

Centralization tends to be abusing power. Using centralization, some individual could control many people live. I could give an example of a Facebook case, which selling our data. Facebook using our behavior and personal info to targeting ads https://www.recode.net/2018/4/11/17177842/facebook-advertising-ads-explained-mark-zuckerberg

It is providing new benefits, but also new challenges. Torrent is an excellent example. Look at how easy it is to access music and movie databases. However, what's with the intellectual rights? I don't believe sharing should be forbidden, but a new way to compensate the artists must be made up. There are services like Bandcamp, iTunes, Netflix etc., but they are all, well, lacking...

Centralization always leads to abusing power, it's inevitable as it is bound to human nature which is burdened by greed (isn't the crypto world and a lot of things happening inside and around it an excellent example of human greed and vanity in action). A full decentralization and free market on the other hand inevitably lead back to the laws of nature - survival of the fittest, which is, again, not good, especially since in the human society the "survival of the fittest" usually means the "survival of the greediest".