Let’s compare the only two existing organizational systems architectures.
Every information contained into this document is known and available for free on the internet, therefore, each statement is verifiable.
The first and primordial organizational system architecture represented on the left red coloured square in the above schema is centralized and sometimes called decentralized when it has multiple hierarchy layers which is often the case.
The second and most recent organizational system architecture is distributed because of it’s non-existent hierarchy layers and is represented on the right blue coloured square in the schema above. The only existent hierarchy or "master" in such organizational system architecture is the "superorganism" as a whole composed of every node which is precisely in fact the protocol.
Under each network relations schemas, there is a representation of the power repartition corresponding to each organizational system architecture. In a completely centralized organizational system architecture, the power repartition would only form a single prism.
The terms OS and software are simply referring to constant “commands” and variables “commands”. Theses terms can be compared to DNA and neural cells to give an other point of view.
Peoples or more precisely humanity is hierarchically organized such as distributed network, since everyone is able to refuse orders and take independent decisions, no one is above or under someone else. But the fact is that many peoples delegate trust, power or control to multiple other people and organizations which make people being in a huge distributed network with power being distributed following a decentralized architecture since many people like to have “masters”. Delegating trust, power or control to multiple other people and organizations is often done subconsciously instead of consciously to brands, legal organizations and popular people which is part of a basic human need to “belong”.
Considering the presented above informations, the agreement or agreed protocol between geographically linked peoples make all the power inside the government minus the power physically operated by the people which are inside the government, but if you remove the power given by the “believing” citizens, the power physically operated by the people which are inside the government would probably collapse. Since the agreement or agreed protocol between geographically linked peoples is strong, the power can not easily collapse unless due to a very powerful trigger. In shorter terms, the citizens give power to the government and not the contrary, if overnight, every citizens would forgot the existence of their government, then their government would just not exist any more or having just a nearly non-existent power. This statement usually impress a lot of people when they realize it.
Bitcoin and Steem are protocols operating on multiple nodes, since every node have the same protocol, the network is purely distributed. But just like peoples, the protocol create a visible tendency or statement to make the power to modify it being slightly centralized/decentralized which create, as a result of the whole, a mix between a centralized/decentralized organizational system architecture and a distributed organizational system architecture.
Now, the Bitcoin protocol make the power to modify it being defined trough proof of work which is therefore more centralized than the Steem protocol which the power to modify it is defined trough the “will power” of it’s users, called the “Steem power” which can be delegated to other users which is what permit to give weight to opinions and define the popularity of users and witnesses which is what plus the “raw will power” of the blockchain users that define the power repartition which is used to modify it. Theses are the reasons why the Steem protocol is more robust than the Bitcoin protocol even if on the actual main Steem implementation, the Steem power repartition is relatively highly centralized for such a protocol.
The gold standard, a monetary system where the medium of exchange are paper notes that are convertible into pre-set, fixed quantities of gold, replaced the use of gold coins as currency in the 17th-19th centuries in Europe. These gold standard notes were made legal tender, and redemption into gold coins was discouraged. By the beginning of the 20th century almost all countries had adopted the gold standard, backing their legal tender notes with fixed amounts of gold.
After World War II, most countries adopted fiat currencies that were fixed to the U.S. dollar. The U.S. dollar was in turn fixed to gold. In 1971 the U.S. government suspended the convertibility of the U.S. dollar to gold. After this many countries de-pegged their currencies from the U.S. dollar, and most of the world's currencies became unbacked by anything except the governments' fiat of legal tender and the ability to convert the money into goods via payment. According to proponents of modern money theory, fiat money is also backed by taxes. By imposing taxes, states create demand for the currency they issue. source
Since any currency is defined intrinsically by everyone, any currency is purely distributed but unequally weighted depending the physical wealth of one person. However, the creation supply process in a physical state (paper, coins) or in a digital state (electronic exchange note for physical state) is often not totality controlled by the state because electronic exchange notes for physical state which is simply your bank account numbers can be created by any banks often without a 1:1 physical backing but has however the same value for everyone, therefore, most currencies supply creation process is not centralized be rather decentralized, even if many people without economical knowledge will told you something else, but nonetheless, most currencies supply creation power are mostly centralized which is a not a good point to store some value when the supply can increase depending variable interest rates which increase or not the number of electronic exchange note for physical currency which therefore can let to decrease the unit value.
The architecture in both organizational structure is only formed by the links which are in facts only maid trough the OS and software commands embedded into each nodes.
In a decentralized system, a slave node is unable to master other nodes but can sometimes create a new link with an other master node while mid slave/master nodes can take order from above and give order under. The primary node is critical and can only transmit orders to secondary nodes, if the primary node or all secondary nodes are taken down, the complete network is taken down too which is why high level decentralized node are very critical.
In a distributed system, every nodes are bounded to be both slave and master at the same time trough an agreed protocol contained into the OS and/or software, some distributed system protocols are designed to make every single node connected to every other single node while other protocols are designed to link node to a defined number of other nodes.
In a distributed system, depending the protocol, when a node is taken down, a node can “magically” create new links to one or multiples other nodes which make distributed systems incredibly robust, and nearly unbreakable when new links are “magically” created trough the embedded same protocol into each node, just like neurons into a brain.
Let’s represent an average model of both organizational system architecture with both 36 similar nodes under not totally random but simultaneous attacks on nodes (not links).
The decentralized organizational system architecture is composed of three layers of hierarchy with respectively one primary node, four secondary nodes, and thirty-one tertiary nodes. Tertiary nodes are able to connect to an other secondary node if their master secondary node is taken down but since tertiary nodes are still depending on a secondary node, it has only an impact to represent this comportment if we wouldn't simulate a complete attack or if the attack would first target all tertiary nodes and only then secondary nodes or primary node. In this example, secondary nodes can still operate without the primary node orders.
The decentralized organizational system architecture is composed of nodes which have between one to six links with other nodes and are unable to connect with other nodes which is very limited comparing to most blockchain or biological protocols.
As you can see above, after seven attacks on both different organizational system architecture, the distributed network is still up with 29 nodes while the decentralized network is completely down even if most tertiary nodes are still up due to the inability of tertiary nodes to become master node or cooperate without a secondary node. Considering both networks parameters described above and not totally random simulated attacks happening simultaneously, the decentralized network is completely taken down while the distributed network is up with 29 nodes, in other terms and following precise parameters, similar attacks on both is 514% more costly to the decentralized network than to the distributed network which is why avoiding attacks trough reducing risks is essentials for decentralized network to keep operate.
Viewed from an other point of view considering this example, security is 514% more critical to decentralized networks than to distributed networks which therefore, make attacks extremely more costly to decentralized organizational system than to distributed organizational system which is why decentralized organizational system owners should take serious measures to reduce attacks risks.
An important relations to understand is that “514%” is not the average proportion, protocol parameters make a very impressive difference in the final proportion. The attack’s smartness or precision make a huge impact and is proportionally increased by the number of nodes present in each networks (with still same numbers on both organizational system architecture) and decreased by the number of levels present in the decentralized network.
The ability of nodes to operate without master node, the ability of nodes to create new links, the number of average links on each nodes make a huge impact too. To summarize, the more networks the is big, the more this security difference is increased following near proportional functions relative to the number of nodes and the attack’s smartness/precision.
If you know all parameters of two systems, you can calculate the security difference or even make a simulation but keep in mind that “514%” is low comparing to real word cases.
This is the reason why node security is much more critical in centralized and decentralized organizational system architectures especially on high-hierarchy placed nodes and much more when the attack precision is smartly coordinated such as humans planned and not trough random events such as natural disasters. This is the reason that has pushed the internet and the blockchain technology to happen and more precisely because of their robustness against respectively nuclear weapons, natural disasters and human generated chaos/attack.
A lot of organizations are starting to work with the blockchain technology because most CEO want to keep control and power over their centralized/decentralized organization but put much more trust in the blockchain technology in order to avoid IT threats which is a distributed system. To me, it’s a great strategy to be, as a result, highly competitive and secure because both architectures have their own advantages/disadvantages since this organizational system architecture does not only apply to IT systems but also to peoples and organizations.
Both organizational structures are very different to handle, decentralized organizational structures offer a very good control, power, and coordination from the top but since handling smart or coordinated attacks is incredibly costly comparing to handling smart or coordinated attacks on a decentralized organizational structures, using both organizational structures is, IMHO, the best way to achieve a very high competitiveness and sustainable/stable development.
If you are designing a system, which can be an organization, a program or anything else, you might be very careful and very wise with the security of your high-level nodes in order to keep it operating, also, planning to use the blockchain technology can offer you a strong stability/security while increasing your efficiency and therefore competitiveness.
As the environment is constantly evolving, being smart and highly flexible is the best way to manage a stable and highly efficient system performing multiple goal-directed operations.
Anything mentioned above is verifiable, if you find any errors, I will correct this document and it’s contained information. This document has been purposely written to help designing efficient and more secure/stable systems without reducing the control over it. Any improvements is appreciated.
PS: How much cost can you reduce and how much profit can you increase using this document's information?
