Honestly - is decentralization a thing?!

[Andreas B.]

Hey,

as some of you may have stumpled upon, there are (quite) many critical voices, when it comes to the so called ' decentralizaton '.

It's said, its a nice hype term, but what is it actually good for?!

Or in other words: Does it work?!
/ Do users really need it?

There are jokes on twitter, saying, web3 is something everyone talks about - but no one really needs or uses...


As it seems, by now there are act. very few websites, that use (some sort of) decentralization, and are successful.

And in those cases, it is more about art, then about usage (ex. opensea.io).


If decentralization is something, the average american ; ) does not really care of - as, most people don't care about google / fb using their data - then why do some people invest that much money in it?!

(You could even ask the same question when it comes to the " metaverse ")

Maybe decentralization, web3 etc. have a future, yes - but maybe it is JUST a niche-future, other than a broad mainstream-future (which would bring the big bucks in...).

So, maybe this whole thing is just a big failure, or will be viewed as one the biggest hypes ever, that has never come to broad daylight.... /
only come into broad daylight in form of an ape nft.


That would be savage.

Take care.

 

[DealMaker1]

It is just a word. Any attempt at decentralization just creates more centralization. Just changing one hat for another. Wherever there is systematization, there will always be a centre.

In other words, the idea was nice, but can't be realized. Man's brain and mind tends toward structure, so it's just replacements we have, not really a decentralization.

The attempt at decentralization has also caused terrible inflation. It has lopsided an economic system that was 400 years in the making. Pretty clever and wise...no?

 

[Andreas B.]

It is just a word. Any attempt at decentralization just creates more centralization. Just changing one hat for another. Wherever there is systematization, there will always be a centre.

In other words, the idea was nice, but can't be realized. Man's brain and mind tends toward structure, so it's just replacements we have, not really a decentralization.

The attempt at decentralization has also caused terrible inflation. It has lopsided an economic system that was 400 years in the making. Pretty clever and wise...no?

There are two questions:


1) Is it doable?
With websites, services, and so on...

In the end, there is still someone who has to keep everything running, create the code, update, customize, aso.
- a decentralized facebook or twitter still needs staff, central orchestrated.
(despite that it needs some centralized hardware too).


2) The more important question:
Are users actually acknowledging and appreciating, that a website () has become decentralized?!
So this expense and input makes any sense...

And this is where I am not sure.


There is that twitter alternative, called mastodon.

I tried it once.

You instantly get the impression, that this is only something for total computer nerds / or 'alternatively minded',
some sort of niche sub culture.


No way to make it the broad mainstream audience, in my eyes.

 

[DealMaker1]

Decentralization implies nobody is in control, and the above examples show someone is always in control.

 

[Andreas B.]

Decentralization implies nobody is in control, and the above examples show someone is always in control.

Then decentralization can only be used for crypto (money) transfers.

Anything else (if you say that it has to have a senseful usecase) involves some sort of involvment of 'external' co workers, employees, someone who supervises the whole sitation etc...


There will never be a fully decentralized twitter, aso.

 

[Amrita]

In a computer based system that relies on procedural logic to coordinate networking services it is logically impossible to achieve full decentralization of any service or application, a decentralized computer network is a logical fallacy.

A network can be independent of another network, but never independent of a central coordinating anchor point which would establish an entry point to the network, and so whoever is the owner or administrator of that central anchor point, whether it is an IP address, domain or other type of oracle that is used to onboard users to a service is the de facto super-administrator of that service, which implies a central authority for the service, which negates the literal meaning of decentralized or autonomous.

 

[Andreas B.]

In a computer based system that relies on procedural logic to coordinate networking services it is logically impossible to achieve full decentralization of any service or application, a decentralized computer network is a logical fallacy.

A network can be independent of another network, but never independent of a central coordinating anchor point which would establish an entry point to the network, and so whoever is the owner or administrator of that central anchor point, whether it is an IP address, domain or other type of oracle that is used to onboard users to a service is the de facto super-administrator of that service, which implies a central authority for the service, which negates the literal meaning of decentralized or autonomous.

Thanks.

Fans of web3 however claim, that it might be possible to build the whole strucuture (ex of a website) solely on something like bitcoin - lightning (layer 2), or ethereum, cardano aso.

And store all the data there (even more than that: users data could only be stored on users device, nowhere else; web5 attempt).

As for network, IP, domain adresses:
There is already that experiment, to replace the conventional system, with web3 decentralized domains, etc.
(handshake, unstoppable) and upgrade webbrowsers to make it usable for the normal user.

 

[buydomainnames]

web3 , decentralisation , decentral, or whatever the term , not fully decentralized. All service still depending on centralized system, like virtual server , hosting server , datacenter, etc.

 

[Andreas B.]

web3 , decentralisation , decentral, or whatever the term , not fully decentralized. All service still depending on centralized system, like virtual server , hosting server , datacenter, etc.

Totally.

The idea of those web3 / dec. enthusiasts is just, that

a) you may still use the hardware, you used before (let it be aws, or oracle, or azure servers), but
b) the data, which will be stored there, will be distributed by layer 2 nodes of the respective blockchain.

That means, that it is a roulette game, what data will be stored on which particular server,
and not as by now,
a clear structure which tells what is stored where and is accessible by the server admin
(in web3, data shall not be accessible from server side; only by the resp. web3 app / its user)

As far as I understand that approach of web3 hosting.

https://hth.guide/web3-hosting/

https://medium.com/iearn/self-hosting-web3-services-299306b706ee

 

[bmugford]

Decentralization is a marketing buzz word.

The world needs some structure, order, and yes centralization to actually function.

Brad

 

[DealMaker1]

Decentralization is a marketing buzz word.

The world needs some structure, order, and yes centralization to actually function.

Brad

This is true. That word misled a lot of people.

Economics requires some structure. Worst thing that could have happened was the attempt at "decentralization" with Bitcoin but mostly the other so-called currencies. Can't just introduce a whole new currency without any product or service to back it up. Beyond COVID, it has jarred the world economic market into inflation. I think perhaps keyboard warriors sitting behind the computer screen have no practical idea that world economy is based on GDP ie products and services put forth by any given country. There is no just introducing a new currency into a balanced system without consequence. Unfortunately governments were unable to keep up with online activity.

For every online millionaire/billionaire that has been made by questionable transactions, there was equally some place or someone who has suffered for the swindling of pure concepts for money. This does NOT help the science of economics in any way

I don't have a problem with the money-making (of course). It is with the uninformed buying into the nonsense. Perhaps there has never been a purer form of predatorial capitalism. Not sure even if the Mafia could hold a candle to it....

 

[DealMaker1]

Then decentralization can only be used for crypto (money) transfers.

Anything else (if you say that it has to have a senseful usecase) involves some sort of involvment of 'external' co workers, employees, someone who supervises the whole sitation etc...


There will never be a fully decentralized twitter, aso.

From my prospective, this is true. Let's take money as the best example. You know it is only a system. Right? It's an agreement between people. If we all agree that money means nothing, it ceases to exist. Right? But we all agree that this is the best way to live for our needs. Right?

So crypto transfers imply a money transaction that is accepted. However, it is essentially made up. A new currency has been injected into the economy with no product or service attached. Thus the inflation problem.

Why do you think people are dropping currency now for physical assets? The introduction of cryptocurrencies has created this disaster. Money is becoming worthless. Crypto has only been an impetus.

 

[bmugford]

So crypto transfers imply a money transaction that is accepted. However, it is essentially made up. A new currency has been injected into the economy with no product or service attached. Thus the inflation problem.

Why do you think people are dropping currency now for physical assets? The introduction of cryptocurrencies has created this disaster. Money is becoming worthless. Crypto has only been an impetus.

I don't envision a world where I can go to Kroger and pay for groceries with some random shitcoin.

Brad

 

[DealMaker1]

I don't envision a world where I can go to Kroger and pay for groceries with some random shitcoin.

Brad

Yep. Acceptance of the online community of these shitcoins has created the problem.

The big picture has been missed. The longer this shit currency expands, the more it trends toward normal fiat currency becoming worthless. Not only are those exponents of crypto making life tougher for others, but obviously for themselves as well.

 

[Namingfy]

It is just a word. Any attempt at decentralization just creates more centralization. Just changing one hat for another. Wherever there is systematization, there will always be a centre.

I agree on this part.

As long as there needs to be KYC verification for 'crypto exchanges', absolutely 100% decentralization is not possible.

As long as we need to rely on ICANN for domain name, absolutely 100% decentralization is not possible.
On the other hand, we still need to appreciate the efforts being put forth by certain individuals/organizations in finding an alternate system which is 100% out of govt control.

Briefly, 100% decentralization is not possible in the near future, but, it's not an impossible thing to achieve - and once achieved - we'll never know how far the mass adoption is possible, that's the only gray area, IMHO.

 

[bmugford]

As long as we need to rely on ICANN for domain name, absolutely 100% decentralization is not possible.
On the other hand, we still need to appreciate the efforts being put forth by certain individuals/organizations in finding an alternate system which is 100% out of govt control.

How is something like Unstoppable Domains any less centralized?
You still have one authority offering domains for money.

They also market as being decentralized, then sue a different .wallet domain registry.

Decentralized would mean welcoming the competition, not trying to use the legal system to stifle it.

The funny thing is their entire legal argument basically makes the case for why structure, order, and centralization is needed.

Brad

 

[alcy]

reminds me of this video I saw where people lived off grid.in some bitcoin community
... they were all so excited to live off.bitcoin and away from government control... it.made me laugh cause meanwhile there is no way in hell bitcoin was not made by government. u have to be an idiot to not see it

 

[DealMaker1]

I agree on this part.

As long as there needs to be KYC verification for 'crypto exchanges', absolutely 100% decentralization is not possible.

As long as we need to rely on ICANN for domain name, absolutely 100% decentralization is not possible.
On the other hand, we still need to appreciate the efforts being put forth by certain individuals/organizations in finding an alternate system which is 100% out of govt control.

Briefly, 100% decentralization is not possible in the near future, but, it's not an impossible thing to achieve - and once achieved - we'll never know how far the mass adoption is possible, that's the only gray area, IMHO.

I see your point. However, you will have a tough time existing outside the present economic structure...and there is no need to. It is there to benefit you, believe it or not.

Most people who've I've met who want decentralization, or so-called, because they absolutely want to be their own bosses. This I totally understand. But it won't be achieved by just trying to make your own currency. Trying to make your own currency equates to anarchy and I don't think you or most people are ready for that or can actually do it with impunity.

Economics is a highly sensitive science. You can't just destroy it. Realize when you are selling within the current system, you are still part of it. Even being here, on this platform, you are part of the market.

 

[D Haynes]

People in echo chambers all make the same mistake...

They say "everyone is this...", "everyone is that..." and "everyone's talking about...".

When the reality is nobody is.

 

[Namingfy]

How is something like Unstoppable Domains any less centralized?

'Unstoppable Domains' still needs a .com (unstoppabledomains.com) to promote their 'decentralized' system!

They also market as being decentralized, then sue a different .wallet domain registry.

Decentralized would mean welcoming the competition, not trying to use the legal system to stifle it.

The funny thing is their entire legal argument basically makes the case for why structure, order, and centralization is needed.

So, in a nut-shell, 'decentralization is an illusion' at least for the time being.

 

[DealMaker1]

'Unstoppable Domains' still needs a .com (unstoppabledomains.com) to promote their 'decentralized' system!



So, in a nut-shell, 'decentralization is an illusion' at least for the time being.

It's an illusion. Without any structure, you won't be able to have the facility of buying things within an agreed upon structure.

With so called decentralization, you are asking for inflation and having no worth to your money.

Do you like farming? If you do, great. With this so called decentralization, you are asking for receding to farming. Because it is devaluing fiat currency and then you will back to life 200 years ago. Currency will be worthless and then you will have to farm. Real progress, right?

 

[DomainNature]

If you want to experience decentralization, go into the Jungle, fish, make fire, poop, wipe with leaves etc. No centralization is watching you, you can do whatever you want there.
Otherwise what we live is centralized, we are controlled in every aspect of our lives, everything we do is recorded, because that data we create, then is used to give birth to AI parasite, which will erase humans, you don't see it at the moment but this AI crap GPT is killing everything slowly.

 

[Ostrados]

The true question is do we need decentralized web? And what benefits do we get from it?

If the two systems centralized Vs decentralized provide exact same functions and features then why would we need to switch?