I must press the issue — this is NOT a rebuttal to the article entitled
Decentralization Is PROBABLY Not The "End-All Be-All" of Crypto. Listen To My Reasoning Before You Kill Me.
because that article doesn't address anything about decentralization. It addresses a dictionary definition. A straw man.
I'm only using it as context.
Using the word "ideal" and starting any argument off with the dictionary definition of what you're arguing against automatically radicalizes your viewpoint.
He did a lot of math symbols and stuff.
But when you're fundamentally wrong about an idea, any mathropomorphization you employ doesn't mean shit. Garbage in, garbage out.
It's common for someone arguing a point to attempt to first minimize and misdefine the opposing viewpoint. After all, it's much easier to fight an objectively incorrect ideology than it is something reasonable. So the writer first minimizes decentralization as an unachievable ideal, which also radicalizes it in the eyes of the reader. He then misdefines it as a perfect democracy.
So now if you "defend" decentralization, you must first clean up its mischaracterization. Once you're done doing that, you don't have any time or energy left to actually talk about a real idea.
We're 3 generations of people who communicate like this. We get our entire mode of communication from political talking heads who make money filibustering their guests with straw men to run down the time rather than actually solve an issue. And the thing is, this type of communication is so ingrained that most people don't even have to be adversarial to do it. This completely inefficient way of interfacing is now just natural speech. That's another, bigger problem.
So anyway, decentralization is about removing arbitration power from centralized human entities, not creating a perfect democracy. The point is equal opportunity, not equality.
If everyone knows the rules, and no one can change the core game theory regardless of what they do, you have decentralization.
I know there's going to be some fucking idiot who says, "but a smart contract is centralized, just not around humans!" Dumbass, it's HUMANITY we're trying to create a system for, not the computers. Computers don't hate each other based on their manufacturer, create RAM inequality on purpose, or go onto the dark web to masturbate to another computer's beheading.
The writer was right about one thing — even in a decentralized system, people eventually merge themselves into groups. The community is then technically decentralized but socially and politically centralized, and unsustainably unequally at that. Shitralization. I'll be defining that in a future post.
Shitralization is stage 2 of the problems we have to solve, but I've been talking about this in many articles. It's the reason we should educate people on staying away from Paypal, Celsius, XRP, and other purposefully centralized products.
But that's stage 2, not stage 1. Stage 1 is removing power from these international cabals while maintaining some semblance of order. That's done through the proper use of defensive technical decentralization (Bitcoin) and the smart contract as arbiter (Ethereum). These technologies are objectively better than any governance system humans have come up with on their own. And when you actually look at what decentralization is based on these advancements rather than trying to argue with a dictionary definition, you can actually have a fruitful discussion.
Decentralization is the way. Humans are unworthy of power, but they can create something that is.
