Bitcoin Forum
December 13, 2017, 08:11:18 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Centralization is the ultimate destiny of any kind of organization?  (Read 951 times)
johnyj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


Beyond Imagination


View Profile
July 30, 2012, 08:01:13 AM
 #1

Is this because human has only one brain?  Roll Eyes

1513152678
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513152678

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513152678
Reply with quote  #2

1513152678
Report to moderator
1513152678
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513152678

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513152678
Reply with quote  #2

1513152678
Report to moderator
1513152678
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513152678

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513152678
Reply with quote  #2

1513152678
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513152678
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513152678

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513152678
Reply with quote  #2

1513152678
Report to moderator
1513152678
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513152678

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513152678
Reply with quote  #2

1513152678
Report to moderator
Jutarul
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994



View Profile
July 30, 2012, 08:05:13 AM
 #2

No

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

The ASICMINER Project https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.0
"The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.", Milton Friedman
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352


Welcome to Bitcoin Stalk


View Profile
July 30, 2012, 08:08:41 AM
 #3

Read "The Starfish and The Spider". IMO all centralized organizations are inherently weak in some vital ways.

BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A CHILL EFFECT AND PERMANENTLY REMOVE ME AND OTHERS FROM THIS FORUM AS RETALIATION FOR SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THEIR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, AND THAT OF THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUES.
johnyj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


Beyond Imagination


View Profile
July 30, 2012, 10:30:50 PM
 #4

Not necessary to be complicated, A want to go east, B want to go west, when they act as a whole, their action will generate disagreement, and how to handle that disagreement?

Either they make agreement (centralization) or they apart (distributed), but the later means the organization actually dimissed

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 30, 2012, 11:17:35 PM
 #5

Not necessary to be complicated, A want to go east, B want to go west, when they act as a whole, their action will generate disagreement, and how to handle that disagreement?

Either they make agreement (centralization) or they apart (distributed), but the later means the organization actually dimissed

Not necessarily. Just that it's not geographically concentrated anymore. As long as they can communicate, they can still have their organization.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Jutarul
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994



View Profile
July 30, 2012, 11:40:06 PM
 #6

the most important aspect of a decentralized system is the incentive structure. Then all you need is that everyone acts in their own best interest. The emergent phenomena is global intelligent behavior or a consensus.

Of course you're partly right - there can and will be disagreement, especially when the bitcoin protocol or incentive structure are to be altered. And that may end up in a "split". For bitcoin this is a scenario which IMHO has not been discussed very well.
However, in it's most basic form a disagreement is similar to a 51% attack. And that scenario has been discussed very well: The "stronger" party will survive, with the miners being able to choose.

The worst thing which can happen is "too many" changes "too fast". Then you may have a split into small fractions. Then a malevolent attacker has it much easier, because he only needs to attack a fraction of the total network...

The ASICMINER Project https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.0
"The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.", Milton Friedman
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 30, 2012, 11:45:36 PM
 #7

The worst thing which can happen is "too many" changes "too fast". Then you may have a split into small fractions. Then a malevolent attacker has it much easier, because he only needs to attack a fraction of the total network...

That's been known since Sun Tzu, if not before.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Jutarul
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994



View Profile
July 31, 2012, 12:07:05 AM
 #8

The worst thing which can happen is "too many" changes "too fast". Then you may have a split into small fractions. Then a malevolent attacker has it much easier, because he only needs to attack a fraction of the total network...

That's been known since Sun Tzu, if not before.

True. And it's actually quite a decent attack vector: Just flood the market with 100 slightly different versions of the bitcoin client which are incompatible with each other Wink

The ASICMINER Project https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.0
"The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.", Milton Friedman
johnyj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


Beyond Imagination


View Profile
July 31, 2012, 07:00:01 AM
 #9

the most important aspect of a decentralized system is the incentive structure. Then all you need is that everyone acts in their own best interest. The emergent phenomena is global intelligent behavior or a consensus.

Of course you're partly right - there can and will be disagreement, especially when the bitcoin protocol or incentive structure are to be altered. And that may end up in a "split". For bitcoin this is a scenario which IMHO has not been discussed very well.
However, in it's most basic form a disagreement is similar to a 51% attack. And that scenario has been discussed very well: The "stronger" party will survive, with the miners being able to choose.

The worst thing which can happen is "too many" changes "too fast". Then you may have a split into small fractions. Then a malevolent attacker has it much easier, because he only needs to attack a fraction of the total network...


That is what I mean, even those tools that claim to be distributed like GIT, technology wise or protocol wise it is still heavily centralized, if user somehow disagree on the protocol or the way of working behind the tool, then it will split

With less and less common interest, how to hold the organization intact, that requires more thinking and work

Jutarul
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994



View Profile
July 31, 2012, 07:18:17 AM
 #10

the most important aspect of a decentralized system is the incentive structure. Then all you need is that everyone acts in their own best interest. The emergent phenomena is global intelligent behavior or a consensus.

Of course you're partly right - there can and will be disagreement, especially when the bitcoin protocol or incentive structure are to be altered. And that may end up in a "split". For bitcoin this is a scenario which IMHO has not been discussed very well.
However, in it's most basic form a disagreement is similar to a 51% attack. And that scenario has been discussed very well: The "stronger" party will survive, with the miners being able to choose.

The worst thing which can happen is "too many" changes "too fast". Then you may have a split into small fractions. Then a malevolent attacker has it much easier, because he only needs to attack a fraction of the total network...


That is what I mean, even those tools that claim to be distributed like GIT, technology wise or protocol wise it is still heavily centralized, if user somehow disagree on the protocol or the way of working behind the tool, then it will split

With less and less common interest, how to hold the organization intact, that requires more thinking and work

Don't confuse sparsity with centralization though. The fact that there is currently only one client is that only a small group of people have the will and knowledge to maintain the source code. Ideally you'd have different distributions which are all compatible. Thus no single point of failure ( like the linux OS).



The ASICMINER Project https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.0
"The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.", Milton Friedman
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 31, 2012, 07:28:38 AM
 #11

the most important aspect of a decentralized system is the incentive structure. Then all you need is that everyone acts in their own best interest. The emergent phenomena is global intelligent behavior or a consensus.

Of course you're partly right - there can and will be disagreement, especially when the bitcoin protocol or incentive structure are to be altered. And that may end up in a "split". For bitcoin this is a scenario which IMHO has not been discussed very well.
However, in it's most basic form a disagreement is similar to a 51% attack. And that scenario has been discussed very well: The "stronger" party will survive, with the miners being able to choose.

The worst thing which can happen is "too many" changes "too fast". Then you may have a split into small fractions. Then a malevolent attacker has it much easier, because he only needs to attack a fraction of the total network...


That is what I mean, even those tools that claim to be distributed like GIT, technology wise or protocol wise it is still heavily centralized, if user somehow disagree on the protocol or the way of working behind the tool, then it will split

With less and less common interest, how to hold the organization intact, that requires more thinking and work

Don't confuse sparsity with centralization though. The fact that there is currently only one client is that only a small group of people have the will and knowledge to maintain the source code. Ideally you'd have different distributions which are all compatible. Thus no single point of failure ( like the Linux OS).

Beat me to it. I was just about to mention Linux. They're not all 100% compatible, but the majority of those instances are the result of some company wanting to keep things proprietary.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
johnyj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


Beyond Imagination


View Profile
July 31, 2012, 12:10:45 PM
 #12

Don't confuse sparsity with centralization though. The fact that there is currently only one client is that only a small group of people have the will and knowledge to maintain the source code. Ideally you'd have different distributions which are all compatible. Thus no single point of failure ( like the linux OS).

Only a few have enough will and knowledge to work on the protocol itself, this makes it highly centralized, if majority of people have the will and knowledge to work on the protocol, there will be more and more different variants

All linux OS is based on Unix architecture, and all computers on this planet are based on binary architecture, this is also a centralized common knowledge base

EhVedadoOAnonimato
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616



View Profile
July 31, 2012, 12:24:16 PM
 #13

Either they make agreement (centralization) or they apart (distributed)

Your definitions are wrong. Agreement and centralization are not related like that. If anything, it would be the other way around:  there's agreement in an artificial decentralized order, since all participants agree to the rules and join, and there's not necessarily an agreement in centralized order, since the order may just be defined centrally and imposed to all participants. (There may be centralized organizations born out of agreements too, though).

Decentralized orders may be born of common agreements among its participants. They may also rise spontaneously (naturally), when some conditions are met, like natural evolution or the free market.

Jutarul
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994



View Profile
July 31, 2012, 05:12:46 PM
 #14

Either they make agreement (centralization) or they apart (distributed)

Your definitions are wrong. Agreement and centralization are not related like that. If anything, it would be the other way around:  there's agreement in an artificial decentralized order, since all participants agree to the rules and join, and there's not necessarily an agreement in centralized order, since the order may just be defined centrally and imposed to all participants. (There may be centralized organizations born out of agreements too, though).

Decentralized orders may be born of common agreements among its participants. They may also rise spontaneously (naturally), when some conditions are met, like natural evolution or the free market.



second that. Agreement comes from the need to cooperate. Another example is language. Why do you think people settle on only a few languages globally? Nobody "tells" them. It's doing you no good to learn languages which nobody else speaks....

The ASICMINER Project https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.0
"The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.", Milton Friedman
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!