Is my crypto decentralized?

[Daedelus]

[this thread began in the Bitcoin General section]


I have a crypto currency in my mind. Here are the fundamental properties:


***
The number of nodes in the network is limited to 95, so not all users will have the opportunity to secure the network themselves.


Opinions on the biggest decisions (i.e. increasing the limit on nodes) can be expressed by the users but they are none binding, as the devs who run a proportion of the nodes would have to agree first and then write the fork with a new upper limit of nodes.


Users can change the devs/node runners and replace them with new ones, (i.e. Replace Bitcoin Dev Gavin with someone else who is deemed better) by a ballot. Devs/node runners can run more than 1 node by default if users allow it. If users decide 1 entity = 1 node max, it may be hard to enforce (different online IDs belonging to the same person would have to be detected) but we can do RL passport checks etc to confirm identities are independent before allowing eligibility to be included in the node ballot.


The devs will always run a proportion of the nodes, as they get an income from running a node. There is nothing stopping devs becoming users and taking part in the ballots using tokens they buy.


***


Would you call my set-up decentralized?


I can answer questions to clarify anything, if required. You can change your vote later, if any discussion changes your mind.

Thanks in advance for your opinions  

[1715423045]

1715423045

[FandangledGizmo]

OP is largely a NXT supporter from what I can gather. Based on his description I think he is essentially asking, without naming it, whether BitShares with it's 101 delegate system meets the criteria to be called decentralized based on his interpretation of it.

This seems to be a spill over from a thread in the altcoin section -

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=916696.0

[redsn0w]

Would you call my set-up decentralized?


I can answer questions to clarify anything, if required. You can change your vote later, if any discussion changes your mind.

Thanks in advance for your opinions 

Would you call my set-up decentralized?    No I don't call your "set-up" decentralized , because each person on this planet *must* (or better be able to ) help the network. So you can't "give" the power to only  95 nodes.  Decentralization :


"Decentralization (or decentralisation) is the process of redistributing or dispersing functions, powers, people or things away from a central location or authority."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralization

[Daedelus]

OP is largely a NXT supporter from what I can gather. Based on his description I think he is essentially asking whether BitShares with it's 101 delegate system meets the criteria to be called decentralized based on his interpretation of it.

This seems to be a spill over from a thread in the altcoin section -

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=916696.0

All true. Here is what I learned from questioning 2-3 of the delegates; https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=916696.msg10106756#msg10106756


But the point of this thread is the check the communities definition of what decentralized means.

By mentioning Bitshares, you have just skewed people opinions (negatively and positively) without allowing them to consider the facts against the fundamentals of what they consider constitutes decentralised.

Why did you feel the need to do that?

[Tradingriver]

this OP is so low!

let assume i start a new coin, and only 50 people are the first shareholders. Do you call me fair distributed?

But i would never ask this in this way.

[matt608]

Decentralisation isn't an absolute, the system you describe is decentralised enough.  It doesn't mean its necessarily the most decentralised, or the least, but it is sufficiently decentralised to function excellently.

[franky1]

if all 95 nodes are:
not owned by a single person but many individuals
not located or managed or supervised in a single persons property on behalf of individuals
where each node has a practical purpose of strengthening the network by being separate and not in collaboration with other nodes.
where there is no bases that a majority stake of nodes can be utilized collectively to manipulate the basic rules

then it COULD be defined as decentralised

[FandangledGizmo]

OP is largely a NXT supporter from what I can gather. Based on his description I think he is essentially asking whether BitShares with it's 101 delegate system meets the criteria to be called decentralized based on his interpretation of it.

This seems to be a spill over from a thread in the altcoin section -

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=916696.0

All true.


But the point of this thread is the check the communities definition of what decentralised means.

By mentioning Bitshares, you have just skewed people opinions (negatively and positively) without allowing them to consider the facts against the fundamentals of what they consider constitutes decentralised.

Why did you feel the need to do that?

Because I felt you had an undisclosed conflict of interest. As a result you haven't given a full unbiased description of the system imo. You've also offered to answer questions on BitShares without being particularly well informed on it.

I think it's not unfair to assume that the subsequent information might be biased & misinformed too.

The thread in the alt-coin section, started by & consisting of mostly NXT supporters has thus far been quite propagandistic imo - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=916696.0

[Daedelus]

Which parts do you object to?


My only interaction with that thread was based around the "Bitshares is decentralized" claim. Dan Larimer (Bytemaster), the core dev, describes Bitshares as "a distributed multi-user database" in his blogpost "What is Bitshares?".
http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/update/2014/12/18/What-is-BitShares/

I agree with him. The node delegates object and insist it is decentralized (with a disclaimer).


This thread is supposed to be a discussion about decentralization, once we had opinions on what that means then we could go from there. You have prevented that from happening.

[FandangledGizmo]

Which parts do you object to?


My only interaction with that thread was based around the "Bitshares is decentralized" claim. Dan Larimer (Bytemaster), the core dev, describes Bitshares as "a distributed multi-user database" in his blogpost "What is Bitshares?".
http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/update/2014/12/18/What-is-BitShares/

I agree with him. The node delegates object and insist it is decentralized (with a disclaimer).


This thread is supposed to be a discussion about decentralization, once we had opinions on what that means then we could go from there. You have prevented that from happening.

Forking is difficult as a new fork would require a new set of 95 nodes at launch, so will require 95 trusted people to secure the network on day 1. Or go through a bootstrapping phase where the network begins centralised in the founder and slowly expands to the 95 node limit.
***

I can answer questions to clarify anything, if required. You can change your vote later, if any discussion changes your mind.

My personal understanding is that forking is not a case of having to choose between 95 trusted nodes or complete trust in the founder. I believe a fork can have how ever many nodes it chooses based on how many trusted people there are too start it.

I'm not very technical though. My main objection is just essentially that a poll and question and answer thread on what is essentially BitShares being conducted by an undisclosed NXT supporter, who had been very critical of the model, would be inherently biased.

[Daedelus]

Forking here refers to a situation where you are unhappy with the current situation and want to break away, in a schism. Thinking about it, this would be true for any crytpo too so is irrelevant and I will remove it.

The rest is accurate, from my lengthy discussion with Stanlarimer, Testz, Sumantsu, yourself and others.


99.9% of my posts are supporting Nxters. It would be undisclosed/underhand if I started a new account with zero post history. But this isn't about Bitshares or Nxt but decentralization and what it means. A point you continue to miss. Once we had confirmed what the community thought this meant, we could have had a better discussion.

But you have made sure that that doesn't happen.

[StanLarimer]

Debates about what constitutes "decentralized" are interesting
if you depend only on decentralization to achieve your design goals.

Centralization tends to corrupt
And absolute centralization corrupts absolutely.
So it is natural to value decentralization.
But,

What we all want is systems that are incorruptible.

Max decentralization does not yield max incorruptibility.

Things that move power away from the center make it harder to corrupt.
Things that increase transparency also help - like broad daylight not darkness.
Things that increase the number of people you have to coerce or seduce to succeed will help,
But so do things that make it harder to coerce or seduce them.
Things that increase detectability of bad behavior make it less likely.
Things that allow correction of the problem - the ability to undo a wrong once detected.
Things that incentivize honorable behavior - and deter dishonorable behavior.

We should be trying to engineer systems with these properties.

Decentralization is a useful tool to this end.
But it is only one tool in our toolkit.
Let us not constrain ourselves to using only one tool.

The leading edge of research has moved on from brute force decentralization.
Now it asks the question, how can we solve such problems most efficiently?
Since decentralization has costs, how much decentralization is enough?
And how much of those savings can be redirected to other important objectives?

Every industry starts out happy to just find some way, any way, to be viable.
Then, over time, better and better ways are added as competitive forces take over.

The aircraft industry used to spend its time optimizing propeller designs.
But aircraft design has not worried much about propellers for a long time.

Never stop looking for ways to solve the problem more efficiently.
That results in systems that are more profitable.
And that helps grow the industry!

[Bisha]

When your own thread backfires. lel

[Daedelus]

Two posts and there could be 50+ Nxters in here who definately wouldn't say it is decentralised.  They would describe it as distributed, in the same camp as Ripple.

But what would be the point of that?


Bitshares definition 'sufficiently distributed' = 'distributed' in mainstream crypto. The core dev refers to it as distributed.

Node owners like StanLarimer seem to be promoting it as decentralized as they see marketing value in it, which feeds into their own bottom line. ~$2500 a month roughly in Stans case.

[CLains]

Bitshares definition 'sufficiently distributed' = 'distributed' in mainstream crypto. The core dev refers to it as distributed.

Core Dev. just wrote a blog post about this topic,

http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/09/How-to-Measure-the-Decentralization-of-Bitcoin/

[Daedelus]

We are going around in circles.

No one is calling Bitshares centralised. They are saying it isn't decentralised.

It is this kind of soft headed thinking and misdirection that I have come to expect.


In this case, marginal utility = increasing decentralisation. Putting an artificial cap, selected arbitrarily creates a distributed network. It can't scale efficiently as the network grows.

If 1000 users are voting for 101 nodes, a year later there are 2000 users without the cap being raised then as the economy grows there is increasing centralisation. You can only raise the number of nodes with the devs permission, who are recipients of income from running a node. So they have to accept less income for it to happen.

The incentives are working against growth in the system. At least for those who value decentralisation.

[CLains]

Another blog post,

http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/07/The-Most-Decentralized-Proof-of-Stake-System/

[Daedelus]

Let me put it another way..

Pretend it has been a huge success and 3 billion people are using it. You've successfully got the devs to hard fork the delegate cap up to 2500. How is this better than the system we have today with governments,  lobbyists, finance industry, oligarchs etc... ? Do you believe these groups don't collude today?

In this system, 2500 have all the economic power. Is this decentralisation?

[CLains]

http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/DPOS_or_Delegated_Proof_of_Stake#Scalability

There are hard realities we have to face.

When systems scale they become centralized for economic reasons.

It doesn't help to insist on semantics and theories when in practice you end up with worse solutions.

Daniel Larimer in his two blog posts shows why DPOS is the better option when we look on how NXT, PPC and BTC are operating in practice.

[Daedelus]

We are not talking semantics, we are talking realities.

Dan Larimer believes 101 nodes is 'sufficient decentralisation'. So presumably, he would prefer the 101 node limit to never be increased?


3 billion people bound to a system reliant on 101 nodes getting millions of dollars in income each (which is the plan). Decentralised? I don't think so, few here would. It is a system that tends towards centralisation.