I'm very interested to see how far things can be decentralised.
I have no real ideas what this would look like but I wonder if there are decentralised approaches to regulation that would work (community decides together who the bad actors are?)
I have no real ideas what this would look like but I wonder if there are decentralised approaches to regulation that would work (community decides together who the bad actors are?)
The problem is that crypto people seem overly keen on decentralising without thinking whether or not there is an actual advantage in doing so, or whether the advantages might outweigh the disadvantages. There is an unfortunate viewpoint that decentralisation is just always a "good thing".
Well, to put cryptocurrency in its historical context, the design-decision to make the architecture of the internet(/darpanet) decentralized was because of the very real and persistent possibility of global thermonuclear war. If you want your computer networks to stay up after NY, DC and SF have all been wiped off the map, decentralization is fairly key.
So I would say yeah, the world has changed, and decentralization is now always a good thing. It's not just "crypto people", it's "people"[0] carrying on in "software"[1] what is already a decades-old trend in computer networking.
[0,1] scare quotes because people and software are both scary
a lot in theory
very little in practice
Are there any real decentralised systems out there that couldn't be controlled or overruled by a few well-placed individuals working together?
> Are there any real decentralised systems out there that couldn't be controlled or overruled by a few well-placed individuals working together?
The internet is probably a good example.
As for decentralisation 'goals', the difference is not clear. Decentralisation is the buzzword that the sector loves, but I haven't seen much in the way of progress towards it.