• Zoom, without Zoom.
• Google Docs, without Google.
• Medium, without Medium.
• WhatsApp, without WhatsApp.
• Payments, without banks.
• Identity, without the state.
A few quick points
- The percentage of internet users who care that the above services are centralized is likely less than 1% and probably much less
- If the open source movement is any indication, the percentage of people in that small group who want to pay to build such decentralized services is also very small
- There is no mention of a moderation slash policing mechanism. The idea that "The State" will allow people to trade child porn or buy and sell ghost guns without interference is ludicrous
My intuition tells me that there is a network law that hasn't been formulated yet that says that decentralized networks trend towards centralized super nodes when certain contraints and requirements are placed on the decentralized network (or maybe there is one and I haven't heard about it)
> My intuition tells me that there is a network law that hasn't been formulated yet that says that decentralized networks trend towards centralized super nodes when certain contraints and requirements are placed on the decentralized network (or maybe there is one and I haven't heard about it)
There’s a generalized version, if not one specific to blockchains and cryptocurrencies: In complex, non-linear dynamic systems, the critical resources of the system tend to concentrate and consolidate over time, due to positive feedback, winner-take-all, and similar effects inherent in these systems. Decentralized systems are subject to these dynamics too, as we’re seeing with both mining/validating concentration and ownership of the wealth in these systems.
People are aware of the problem, but it’s probably unsolvable, deterministically at least.
In broader society, in the past, such trends have tended to eventually result in some kind of collapse or revolution (French, Bolshevik, etc). It’s like there’s a natural asymptote to the concentration of resources, that forces a (painful) reset once they become too concentrated.
> In complex, non-linear dynamic systems, the critical resources of the system tend to concentrate and consolidate over time, due to positive feedback, winner-take-all, and similar effects inherent in these systems. Decentralized systems are subject to these dynamics too,
I've come across various essays and posts that make this point tangentially, but not much that investigates it directly. If you are aware of any, links would be appreciated.
> It’s like there’s a natural asymptote to the concentration of resources, that forces a (painful) reset once they become too concentrated.
Likewise, if you know of work to determine how concentrated is too concentrated, that would be interesting.
Game theory applies well to many scenarios in cryptcurrency and decentralized efforts. People always want more power, at least the people who end up at the top do. There is no limit to that desire for power and control so it's inevitable that it ends up concentrated at the top.
You just described a business model for startups. And likely this startup!
Any decentralized network will create abundance, but also all the problems of abundance - identity, filtering, search, stability, etc. Some trusted gateways or intermediaries are then created to solve those problems. And then we're in a race to get a monopoly, one that well-capitalized startups can win.
A "browser" is a play to control or at least have influence over all of these experiences, just like IE was for Microsoft or Chrome is for Google.
- The percentage of internet users who care that the above services are centralized is likely less than 1% and probably much less
- If the open source movement is any indication, the percentage of people in that small group who want to pay to build such decentralized services is also very small
- There is no mention of a moderation slash policing mechanism. The idea that "The State" will allow people to trade child porn or buy and sell ghost guns without interference is ludicrous
My intuition tells me that there is a network law that hasn't been formulated yet that says that decentralized networks trend towards centralized super nodes when certain contraints and requirements are placed on the decentralized network (or maybe there is one and I haven't heard about it)