Decentralisation Versus Distributed

chekohler(76)

Published in

LeoFinance

Words

739

Reading

4 min

Listen

Play

Hey Jesscentralised

If you're reading this you're pretty much into crypto; you're buying it, earning it, trusting various networks and transferring value across these chains. It's a strange new world we live in, and for someone like myself that got in during the class of 2016, it has slowly become the norm as I take note of what goes on in the crypto markets and show up every day.

Crypto has become second nature to me and a habit I don't think I'll break anytime soon. I've become so numb to all the FUD and price movements, and I've made it a part of me.

Satoshi, you had me at hello!

Now having that level of commitment to something will always put you in a place where you need to defend it, you need to have conviction not only against those that hate it or don't understand it but also yourself, you'll have self-doubts.

One of the major criticisms I often see about the blockchain space is the idea of decentralisation. The buzz word we all love to throw around, but no one seems to take time the define it.

What is decentralisation?
Where do we draw the line?
What encompasses decentralisation?

The decentralisation debate

I can't make up your mind for you, I can only say where I today stand on the topic, but to me, only Bitcoin stands as a decentralised network. It is decentralised geographically in terms of the miners, its decentralised in terms of nodes, its decentralised in terms of the number of wallets and users holding and using the coin.

However..........THIS IS ALL RELATIVE!

When you throw numbers into a debate having only 1% of the world owning this asset class, it can hardly be called decentralised; we can always point to ways it's centralised, the majority of the miners are in China. A large sum of BTC sits on exchanges and so on.

What decentralisation actually means to me is actually the likelihood of it being attacked or changed. I think Bitcoin has already or is very close to reaching that escape velocity where enough people support it that the hard cap will always be enforced. I think Bitcoin has reached the point where it would take too many resources to make it viable to take down in a 51% attack, I think it's lindy effect has taken hold, and that to me is the decentralisation of the network.

All other networks are distributed

Altcoins like to fly the flag of decentralisation, but let's be honest here, it's not decentralised, it's as close to a distributed database, it's more of a cloud service than a decentralised network. Most of the altcoins we see today could be taken down with a few arrests, declaring operations illegal, or a few million dollars to collude to bring it down.

Do I think there is something wrong with distributed systems? No, if they serve a purpose that people enjoy and would like to use, by all means, I don't think you should whore out the term "decentralised" in your white paper and your marketing.

Distributed projects have value

Just because you're not fully decentralised doesn't mean you don't have value, it's only that your attack vectors are higher than others. Just because you're distributed doesn't mean you cannot be safe to use or good for the environment. A lot of maxis tend to write off everything that's not Bitcoin, and I get the appeal to do so, shitcoins are aplenty.

But I have no problem with distributed systems; I think they provide a middle ground between centralised services and Bitcoin sitting on the other end of the spectrum. They serve as a bridge between the two worlds and the more bridges we build; the more people can travel to and from the larger Bitcoin ecosystem.

I think we should have better descriptions for systems instead of lumping them into these meaningless terms and then causing shit within the wider community about said never defined definitions.