Bitcoin Forum
May 22, 2024, 11:39:07 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Decentralization is not the answer  (Read 1570 times)
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622
Merit: 500



View Profile
May 13, 2014, 06:46:32 AM
 #21

Central bank policy ultimately results in a severe misallocation of resources.  In 2008, free markets were telling us that many financial institutions needed to fail and be terminated.  Yet central banks bailed out these institutions with resources taken from productive sectors of the economy.  Now we are still dealing with these nonproductive financial institutions and the productive economy is suffering.

Now look at the bitcoin economy.  Over the past few months, free markets were telling us that mt gox needed to fail, which was an extremely large player.  If bitcoin were managed by a central entity, that entity would likely have chosen to create enough bitcoin out of thin air to bail out mt gox and punish those who had diligently stored their coins.  It doesn't look pretty short term, but longer term the bitcoin economy will prove much stronger without this failed exchange.  We are already seeing multisig and proof of reserves systems come online with other exchanges attempting to prevent a similar fate.

Bitcoin has a history of weeding out weak players, which is necessary to strengthen an economy.  The media likes to tout the significant numbers of exchanges and wallet services that have failed, but these failures are a positive because it eliminates the weakest links in the bitcoin chain, forcing innovation, and solidifying a strong economy.  The crypto-economy will experience significant growth going forward while the legacy system will continue to deteriorate.

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007



View Profile
May 13, 2014, 06:55:15 AM
 #22

Central bank policy ultimately results in a severe misallocation of resources.  In 2008, free markets were telling us that many financial institutions needed to fail and be terminated.  Yet central banks bailed out these institutions with resources taken from productive sectors of the economy.  Now we are still dealing with these nonproductive financial institutions and the productive economy is suffering.

Now look at the bitcoin economy.  Over the past few months, free markets were telling us that mt gox needed to fail, which was an extremely large player.  If bitcoin were managed by a central entity, that entity would likely have chosen to create enough bitcoin out of thin air to bail out mt gox and punish those who had diligently stored their coins.  It doesn't look pretty short term, but longer term the bitcoin economy will prove much stronger without this failed exchange.  We are already seeing multisig and proof of reserves systems come online with other exchanges attempting to prevent a similar fate.

Bitcoin has a history of weeding out weak players, which is necessary to strengthen an economy.  The media likes to tout the significant numbers of exchanges and wallet services that have failed, but these failures are a positive because it eliminates the weakest links in the bitcoin chain, forcing innovation, and solidifying a strong economy.  The crypto-economy will experience significant growth going forward while the legacy system will continue to deteriorate.

Well said.  Bitcoin is a harsh but just system that favours the innovative and the efficient.  Innovation and efficiency is good for everyone because it helps us to satisfy human demand while minimizing resource misallocation.  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
twiifm
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 500



View Profile
May 13, 2014, 07:07:02 AM
Last edit: May 13, 2014, 07:25:08 AM by twiifm
 #23

Easy to say when the economy is niche and tiny.  You can't compare Mt Box to TBTF.  If AIG was allowed to fail.  I wouldnt even wanna imagine.

I realize most people here think of money in terms of micro economics and that's why all the arguments tend to relate back to the individual.  What they don't understand is that things are very different at the macro level.

Inelastic money doesn't work at macro level.  Some things should be decentralized but organizations need top down control.  This should be instinctual if you've gone to school, played on a basketball team, work in a corporation. We humans are social animals.  We expect to be governed.  That's why our civilization flourish.

Bitcoin has become such a cult that "believers" think its the cure to the worlds ailments.  The economic crisis we are facing is mostly about regulation, systemic risk, globalization and wealth inequality.  Who cares about central bankers and FRB?  Who cares aboit bitcoin except the technology to transfer money.  Those are red herrings creating diversion from the real issues that needs discussion

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007



View Profile
May 13, 2014, 07:54:34 AM
Last edit: May 13, 2014, 08:05:12 AM by Peter R
 #24

Easy to say when the economy is niche and tiny.  You can't compare Mt Box to TBTF.  If AIG was allowed to fail.  I wouldnt even wanna imagine.

MtGox was twice the size of Lehman (relative to bitcoin money supply) by some measures, and vastly larger by others.  Yet its failure didn't destroy bitcoin--in fact it is already begining to make it stronger (proof of reserves, better wallets, increased awarness of counterparty risk).  This is because the bitcoin economy is robust, unlike the babied fiat economy.


Quote
Inelastic money doesn't work at macro level.  Some things should be decentralized but organizations need top down control.  This should be instinctual if you've gone to school, played on a basketball team, work in a corporation. We humans are social animals.  We expect to be governed.  That's why our civilization flourish.

Except for the last century, and isolated incidents before that, we've had hard money for thousands of years in the form of gold and silver.  To say that it didn't work is crazy.  

Hard money is not mutually exclusive of community organization.  They're two different things.  Money is just a construct used to solve the double-coincidence of wants problem.  Saying you can't have hard money and community organization or forms of governance (or even economic stimulus) is ignoring almost the entire history of humanity.  


Quote
Bitcoin has become such a cult that "believers" think its the cure to the worlds ailments.  The economic crisis we are facing is mostly about regulation, systemic risk, globalization and wealth inequality.  Who cares about central bankers and FRB?  Who cares aboit bitcoin except the technology to transfer money.  Those are red herrings creating diversion from the real issues that needs discussion

Bitcoin is simply a useful technology.  It is a peer-to-peer electronic cash system that allows users to store, transport and exchange funds with other users across the world, without the assistance of a third party or the permission of an authority.

But people are scared of new useful things because their subconscious knows that it will reshape the world and their interpretation of reality.  People were even scared of physics hundreds of years ago because "no man can understand the motion of the heavens for they are God's creation."

This is why you are here.  Your subconscious already knows that bitcoin is useful, but your current perception of reality doesn't allow you to see why that is.  So you come to a forum filled with people interesting and excited about bitcoin to try and remedy the cognitive dissonance that fills your brain.  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
counter
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 500


Time is on our side, yes it is!


View Profile
May 13, 2014, 08:28:20 AM
 #25

Central bank policy ultimately results in a severe misallocation of resources.  In 2008, free markets were telling us that many financial institutions needed to fail and be terminated.  Yet central banks bailed out these institutions with resources taken from productive sectors of the economy.  Now we are still dealing with these nonproductive financial institutions and the productive economy is suffering.

Now look at the bitcoin economy.  Over the past few months, free markets were telling us that mt gox needed to fail, which was an extremely large player.  If bitcoin were managed by a central entity, that entity would likely have chosen to create enough bitcoin out of thin air to bail out mt gox and punish those who had diligently stored their coins.  It doesn't look pretty short term, but longer term the bitcoin economy will prove much stronger without this failed exchange.  We are already seeing multisig and proof of reserves systems come online with other exchanges attempting to prevent a similar fate.

Bitcoin has a history of weeding out weak players, which is necessary to strengthen an economy.  The media likes to tout the significant numbers of exchanges and wallet services that have failed, but these failures are a positive because it eliminates the weakest links in the bitcoin chain, forcing innovation, and solidifying a strong economy.  The crypto-economy will experience significant growth going forward while the legacy system will continue to deteriorate.

I don't know why but I figured this post was the OP and was the exact opposite of the title of the thread...  I just thought was amusing and that I should share.  I also wanted to point out you made excellent points the I agree with thoroughly.
Timo Y
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 1001


bitcoin - the aerogel of money


View Profile
May 13, 2014, 09:30:08 AM
 #26

or a decentralized social network..

Are you serious? A social network is already decentralized by its very nature. Facebook is not a social network.  Facebook is just a social network mediation service.  The only reason people use a centralized website for that in the 00s and 10s is because websites are easier to program and maintain and the technology of p2p applications hasn't caught up yet, especially in terms of UE.  Trolls and spammers are not an issue in a high trust environment where you get to choose who is allowed to communicate with you.  They have only become an issue for Facebook users who don't use Facebook as a social network, ie. people who have lots of strangers as Facebook friends.

I would be very surprised if 20 years from now social networks are still mediated by centralized websites. Everyone is going to have their own agent that communicates with other other people's agents via standardized interfaces. The power and flexibility offered by agents is no match to a one-size-fits-all website.

As for decentralization of leadership, I agree that there is no replacement for a human leader when it comes to giving a group of people vision and inspiration.  One aspect of leadership can be decentralized though: power.   Democracy is an attempt to do just  that, though it didn't quite get there because it still relies on human power custodians.  DACs could take this one step further and replace the custodians with consensus networks.

GPG ID: FA868D77   bitcoin-otc:forever-d
ShakyhandsBTCer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448
Merit: 250


It's Money 2.0| It’s gold for nerds | It's Bitcoin


View Profile
June 14, 2014, 07:48:25 PM
 #27

The bitcoin foundation is not decentralized, but is still needed. What decentralized social networks are you talking about?

I've seen someone posted about having one in the Projects section. The network won't be run by moderators, and also won't store ip addresses, which makes absolutely no sense, because if someone commits a crime(scamming, blackmailing, threats, etc etc), it will be even harder to catch them(assuming they don't use a proxy/TOR), and without moderators, the whole site would be in Chaos.

You are talking about a forum which is different then a currency or a P2P payment method.

A P2P currency can have a set of rules that can be enforced by the miners. The rules are very cut and dry and is obvious when a rule is being followed or not.

A forum can (and should) have rules, however when people are discussing various topics judgment needs to be made to determine if a rule is being broken or not. If the community feels like the rules are not being followed they could easily leave the forum as the forum itself has little value to it's members.
nwfella
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582
Merit: 1000

Well hello there!


View Profile
June 14, 2014, 08:25:54 PM
 #28

"Decentralization" is a bad concept, not because the people advocating for it have bad intentions, but because as a goal it's not sufficiently precise.

http://bitcoinism.blogspot.com/2014/03/decentralized-applications-its-time-for.html

The "decentralize all the things!" approach to every problem under the sun is like using a shotgun where a scalpel would be more appropriate.
+1

*Kind of reminds me of the push back when OOP first came on the scene.  Object oriented code is always better than not right?  Not necessarily.

¯¯̿̿¯̿̿'̿̿̿̿̿̿̿'̿̿'̿̿̿̿̿'̿̿̿)͇̿̿)̿̿̿̿ '̿̿̿̿̿̿\̵͇̿̿\=(•̪̀●́)=o/̵͇̿̿/'̿̿ ̿ ̿̿

Gimme the crypto!!
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!