When we consider more complex systems, we must contend with more complex relationships between the layers. The nature of sybil resistance in blockchains dictates how centralization emerges.
-
Show this thread
-
If PoW is used for sybil resistance then some emergent centralization happens around Mining operators. If PoS is used, there is an inherent pressure toward centralization of distribution (or delegated trust points)
1 reply 1 retweet 16 likesShow this thread -
Many projects try to hide their centralization and couch it in terms designed to demphasize it's importance within the system. "We will move away from this implementation in the future" which you should generally read as (we don't know how yet)
1 reply 7 retweets 37 likesShow this thread -
And here we come the concept of Practical centralization. The idea that even if a protocol is designed with autonomy in mind, the way that it has been deployed/implemented has resulted in uneven power distribution. See: email (gmail), ntp (google, canonical) etc.
1 reply 2 retweets 23 likesShow this thread -
Practical centralization is a hard concept to grasp because it isn't obvious from reading a paper or protocol spec how adoption will play out. However, it is nevertheless something that has to be designed against.
1 reply 1 retweet 20 likesShow this thread -
Hard coded defaults/trust anchors, centralized upgrade severs, user preference, proprietary features, spam, ddos prevention...so many things can practically cause emergent centralized and given a handful of people uneven control over the whole system (and it's future direction)
1 reply 5 retweets 23 likesShow this thread -
We need to move beyond naive conceptualizations of decentralization (like the % of nodes owned by an entity), and instead, holistically, understand how trust and power are given, distributed and interact.
1 reply 10 retweets 57 likesShow this thread -
Decentralization is important because building systems that distribute power is important. Too many systems distribute work load at the protocol layer, but maintain power at the political or practical layer. Those systems are not decentralized. And many can never be.
2 replies 24 retweets 69 likesShow this thread -
Hidden centralization is the curse of protocol design of our age. Many people have become very good at obfuscating and rationalizing away power concentration to the detriment of everyone.
3 replies 9 retweets 48 likesShow this thread -
Adding to this confusion is that some power concentration is inevitable and in some cases desirable...having a singe team, and a canonical implementation is the best way to produce secure software efficiently. We should ensue those trade offs don' have unintended consequences.
3 replies 0 retweets 25 likesShow this thread
Are you sure about canonical implementations? My experience has always been that they're horribly buggy and nobody discovers that until doing independent implementations.
-
-
Replying to @RichFelker
True. Independent implementations are useful, and necessary. My point is more that without a canonical implementation any kind of convergence is difficult...although I'd concede that for some kinds of systems even that isn't true.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.