Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Centralization is inevitable, but decentralization is right behind it

subconscious.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 158 posts

Re: Centralization is inevitable, but decentralization is right behind it

#51

Post by somenameforme »

k__ wrote: post #32
Ericson2314 wrote: post #29

The point of open protocols is not that there will actually be many providers, but that one could switch providers easily if they do something fishy. It's about the threat, and what can happen on margin. Keeping a sword dangling over the monopolist's head is reasonable.

Plus, if these protocols are built on top of cryptographic methods, it might not be so easy for the providers to do something fishy in the first place.

Since somebody chose to downvote the above comment, I think it bears elaboration for those who might not understand. A contemporary example is domain names. The current domain system is a monopoly, and it sucks. You pay companies a never-ending and ever-increasing rent to do literally less than nothing. A domain isn't much more than a key/value pair in a small database. You're paying never-ending rent to them for them to not go out of their way to delete your entry.

Relying on a centralized competitor to offer something better would be dubious. If they gain substantial marketshare there's nothing stopping them from deciding to simply swap back to our current system. It could even be done retroactively since everybody has those lines in their terms and conditions that amount to 'We can do anything, and you can't do anything about it.'

But with a decentralized system you have the possibility of a new type of domain where while one operator may be able to be the only one that can create them, once they transfer that domain to you it becomes literally impossible for them to access, change, or affect it in any way, shape, or form. Decentralization is able to turn various digital goods into something much closer to their physical counterpart where you are buying something that is no longer connected to the seller after checkout. And this can really help ensure the integrity of services that otherwise might be susceptible to bait and switch business models.

Re: Centralization is inevitable, but decentralization is right behind it

#52

Post by nico »

npc12345 wrote: post #45
k__ wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plus, if these protocols are built on top of cryptographic methods, it might not be so easy for the providers to do something fishy in the first place.

Sure, Binance could run off with your money tomorrow if they wanted you, but if you keep most of your money in your actual Bitcoin wallet and only deposit what you need to, your money is 100% safe.

Big lesson learned from Mtgox.

Unfortunately wallets have their cons too, and there are a lot of people who have lost their passwords or thumbdrives and thus access to their crypto.

No silver bullet.

Re: Centralization is inevitable, but decentralization is right behind it

#53

Post by andirk »

nico wrote: post #52
npc12345 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, Binance could run off with your money tomorrow if they wanted you, but if you keep most of your money in your actual Bitcoin wallet and only deposit what you need to, your money is 100% safe.

Big lesson learned from Mtgox. Unfortunately wallets have their cons too, and there are a lot of people who have lost their passwords or thumbdrives and thus access to their crypto. No silver bullet.

Didn't the Mtgox people finally get their BTC back but only after a few years and the price 100x'd ironically? Either way, diversify ones portfolio including where the moneys are kept.

Re: Centralization is inevitable, but decentralization is right behind it

#54

Post by robocat »

Retric wrote: post #30
skybrian wrote: post #13

Nit: Dunbar’s number is casually used in a way that doesn’t seem relevant here. It’s not true that we can only remember about 150 entities. People know many thousands of words. (It is true that there are limits on what people will remember.)

Dunbars number relates to remembering relationships between people which is 150 * ~149 things not 150. You might not remember what everyone in the group thinks of everyone else, but keeping track of grudges is often relevant.

It is nowhere near 150 * 149 because people in human networks have different amounts of connectivity, “influencers” with many connections, and others with few connections, as well as cliques with high internal connectivity but low external connectivity. And relationships between influential individuals matter way more. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network

Re: Centralization is inevitable, but decentralization is right behind it

#55

Post by PontifexMinimus »

somenameforme wrote: post #51
k__ wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plus, if these protocols are built on top of cryptographic methods, it might not be so easy for the providers to do something fishy in the first place.

Since somebody chose to downvote the above comment, I think it bears elaboration for those who might not understand. A contemporary example is domain names. The current domain system is a monopoly, and it sucks. You pay companies a never-ending and ever-increasing rent to do literally less than nothing. A domain isn't much more than a key/value pair in a small database. You're paying never-ending rent to them for the…

> A contemporary example is domain names. The current domain system is a monopoly, and it sucks. You pay companies a never-ending and ever-increasing rent to do literally less than nothing. A domain isn't much more than a key/value pair in a small database.

Is there any legal or technical reason why someone can't set up a DNS server that resolves domain names to different IP addresses than those traditionally used?

Re: Centralization is inevitable, but decentralization is right behind it

#56

Post by nico »

andirk wrote: post #53
nico wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big lesson learned from Mtgox. Unfortunately wallets have their cons too, and there are a lot of people who have lost their passwords or thumbdrives and thus access to their crypto. No silver bullet.

Didn't the Mtgox people finally get their BTC back but only after a few years and the price 100x'd ironically? Either way, diversify ones portfolio including where the moneys are kept.

Don’t know if distribution has happened yet. But there were at least a few investors buying claims, so plenty of people were able to cash out.

You could say that’s actually a better outcome than losing your private key.

Re: Centralization is inevitable, but decentralization is right behind it

#57

Post by efsavage »

somenameforme wrote: post #51
k__ wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plus, if these protocols are built on top of cryptographic methods, it might not be so easy for the providers to do something fishy in the first place.

Since somebody chose to downvote the above comment, I think it bears elaboration for those who might not understand. A contemporary example is domain names. The current domain system is a monopoly, and it sucks. You pay companies a never-ending and ever-increasing rent to do literally less than nothing. A domain isn't much more than a key/value pair in a small database. You're paying never-ending rent to them for the…

I'm not defending registrars/registries per se, but...

> A domain isn't much more than a key/value pair in a small database.

No, it's often a huge investment and important part of security approaches (certificates, validation, email, etc.)

> You're paying never-ending rent to them for them to not go out of their way to delete your entry.

Yes, you're paying them to not update that value to point to someone else's server. Just like you pay your landlord to not only keep your apartment in working order, but to not let someone else live there.

> becomes literally impossible for them to access, change, or affect it in any way, shape, or form

How is this a good thing? Someone takes over your domain and nobody is able to get it back? You just spent millions of dollars on marketing to get people to visit your somenameforme.tld and now it points to another site because your key leaked. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯?

Re: Centralization is inevitable, but decentralization is right behind it

#58

Post by mypalmike »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #21
jryhjythtr wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good for you, Mr. Exception-to-the-rule. (Btw, the same is true for me too).

And me. So your "exception" hypothesis is getting weaker :) You've really got me thinking. Is there a word for that thing when "everyone knows" what they think "everyone is doing", but once they start to dig deeper it turns out nobody really is? Everyone is pretending to, because they think that's what everybody should say and do? Mass delusion? Group fallacy? Fashion? Groupthink? None quite capture it.

I think what's happening here is selection bias. The people who proudly have no Meta accounts are replying to each other saying "me too". The hundreds of others who were reading did not reply.

Re: Centralization is inevitable, but decentralization is right behind it

#59

Post by mistermann »

seydor wrote: post #41

the internet is even less constrained than the airport network. With practically zero friction keeping it in check, it can centralize completely. So, we can't put our eggs on decentralization, but instead we should put them on competition. Seemingly however, there is no competitor to silicon valley. And the valley itself is extremely anticompetitive and monopolistic, with different parts of the net being consolidated…

Is it possible to host a site on a Chinese or Russian internet such that it is impossible to be taken down by Western forces?

Re: Centralization is inevitable, but decentralization is right behind it

#60

Post by somenameforme »

PontifexMinimus wrote: post #55
somenameforme wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since somebody chose to downvote the above comment, I think it bears elaboration for those who might not understand. A contemporary example is domain names. The current domain system is a monopoly, and it sucks. You pay companies a never-ending and ever-increasing rent to do literally less than nothing. A domain isn't much more than a key/value pair in a small database. You're paying never-ending rent to them for the…

> A contemporary example is domain names. The current domain system is a monopoly, and it sucks. You pay companies a never-ending and ever-increasing rent to do literally less than nothing. A domain isn't much more than a key/value pair in a small database. Is there any legal or technical reason why someone can't set up a DNS server that resolves domain names to different IP addresses than those traditionally used?

Beyond network effect, nope. This is one of the more convenient ways to block in-app ads on mobile. Set your DNS to something like AdGuard's servers, and they'll resolve ad delivering domains to a no-op. And suddenly all major third party ads in apps or the web alike are gone.
Post reply on HN