[HN Gopher] The promise and paradox of decentralization ___________________________________________________________________ The promise and paradox of decentralization Author : yosoyubik Score : 95 points Date : 2021-11-05 16:22 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.thediff.co) (TXT) w3m dump (www.thediff.co) | keiferski wrote: | Something that I never see discussed with regards to | decentralization: it is more or less _required_ if you want to | have meaningful cultural diversity. This is, I think, a bit | obvious if you look at history: centralized states with well- | defined languages and laws end up swallowing all the smaller | dialects, cultures, and kingdoms. Good for empire managers, bad | for culture. | | English-language media is currently doing this to a lot of | smaller cultures and languages, replacing them with a uniform | monoculture. And that's because the same thing happens when | communication tech is centralized in a small number of megacorps. | | The original appeal of the Internet to me was the potential for a | vast amount of interesting subcultures. So while decentralization | does enable a lot of messy and undesirable stuff, I think it | might be a requirement if you don't want everything, everywhere | to be exactly the same. | isodev wrote: | It's hilarious how a bunch of "investors" put together some | money, invented a whole corpus of fictional vocabulary to replace | existing concepts, slapped a web 3 label on it and voila - the | most profitable global scam is born. | wombat-man wrote: | Yeah I've been playing around with decentralized apps and it's | pretty unimpressive so far. Still people are dumping a lot of | money into the concept. It's interesting to watch I guess. | kordlessagain wrote: | Not much, other than our own computer, is really decentralized. | Even if something like IPFS was easy to access, a lot of highly | decentralized data is fairly worthless because something has to | index it, in a centralized place, to make it searchable. | | The "paradox" is things may be decentralized, but then finding | and using those things in aggregate is hard. | afiori wrote: | The solution is to look at federation more than to | decentralization. | | Together with decentralization comes the idea that | centralization is bad, which is wrong; centers are good, you | just have to protect the sistem from abusive centers, and/or | let people choose which center or center of centers they | prefer. | | In an alternare universe facebook has a moderation system users | "subscribe to" that warns your client of what content you are | likely to want to avoid but allowed you to "fork" it so that if | you were displeased with their moderation you could run your | own and have others subscribe to your moderation instead/too | notriddle wrote: | Federation, at least the way email, XMPP, the Fediverse, and | the production version of Matrix do it, is a half-assed | approach to data portability. | | The biggest problem with it is that, if a formerly-good | server goes bad (or goes away entirely), everyone who used it | is screwed, because their identity is tied up in the server. | This means your most important criteria for choosing a server | is stability. In practice, most of the user base picks old, | established servers, hoping that the past predicts the | future, and cementing a small oligopoly who can then use | their power to direct the network's future. | | Real portability, like Matrix is working on and Scuttlebutt | already has, helps with this problem. If your user ID isn't | tied up in a domain name, then you can try out hosting your | own server, and switch to and from it without much risk, so | more people will try it. | beders wrote: | > The Internet was supposed to be a totally open set of protocols | that anyone could interact with, and for a long time it was, | | That is still true today. Anyone can still open a connection to a | socket or make a server-socket available on that particular layer | and can expect routing to work. Yet. | | While it is tempting to equate "the Internet" with the world- | wide-web - a term used less and less, they are two very different | things. | | The biggest danger to the internet is about control of the | underlying networks. That countries can cut themselves off from | the internet or monitor all packets being routed in large regions | is problematic. Efforts into "decentralization" should start | there. | austincheney wrote: | The biggest problem with decentralization is that most people | cannot imagine it, at all. Most people, including developers, are | limited to what they are already familiar with, which is websites | and content. That is not decentralized and any attempt to use | websites or content to frame some discussion of decentralization | is at best grossly incomplete. | | If you want to think in terms of decentralization you have to | stop thinking in terms of broadcast, influence, publication, and | broadcast. In a decentralized system you only influence those | whom you are directly connected to and only if they wish to | consume it. | | If the goal of your online presence is some form of attention | seeking behavior then be happy with Twitter and Facebook. If on | the other hand you wish to share and expose absolutely everything | without embarrassment or violations of privacy decentralization | is probably something amazing. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | Good article that makes a good faith effort to discuss tradeoffs | rather than glorifying or demonizing decentralization. | | > The first downside to "Anyone can build anything" is that | "anyone" means anyone, and the people to whom decentralized | systems are the most attractive are the ones who are banned from | other systems, often for good reasons. | | This is an often overlooked point from the user perspective. | Decentralization sounds great when a website censors content you | didn't want it to censor, but most users don't realize just how | much unwanted spam and abuse content gets quietly removed from | public platforms on a daily basis. The sheer volume of spam or | even just angry/abusive users on public platforms these days is | hard to describe if you haven't been on the spam/abuse prevention | side of a popular website. | | Worse, the most abusive users tend to be the most persistent. | They can become very good at gaming things like IP blocks, | reputation systems, or voting systems. The best users can quickly | get frustrated with even small levels of abuse and leave a | platform. | | Decentralization seems to work well for cases where individuals | are privately interacting with other users they already know. It | seems much more difficult to solve the problem of public forum | websites where anyone can contribute content. That's a dream come | true for spammers and abusers. I'm interested to see how this | space evolves as these platforms try different solutions. | qwerty2021 wrote: | moderation is not censorship. | | punishing someone for breaking the rules - not vague "we | reserve the right to fuck you in the ass for any reason or no | reason at all" kind of bullshit rules employed by | facebook/twitter/reddit/whatever - is not considered censorship | even at the kinds of places where people are particularly | sensitive to it - for example, people don't accuse moderators | of censorship when someone posts porn on 4chan's safe-for-work | boards and it then gets deleted. | | besides, facebook/twitter/reddit/whatever, despite being | centralized and authoritarian services, aren't equipped to | combat abuse any better than decentralized entities, the only | difference being that instead of blatant low-effort buy-penis- | pills spam they are targeted for subtle manipulation at | industrial scale. | afiori wrote: | > breaking the rules - not vague "we reserve the right to | fuck you in the ass for any reason or no reason at all" kind | of bullshit | | if Facebook actually had a PR position of "we remove whatever | the hell we want" it would be fine, rather they prefer to | have nice sounding rules and then interpret them however the | hell the want. | | Personally I have a similar position towards net | neutrality... if my isp wants to degrade connections to | torrents and netflix/youtube that is fine, but the have to | put it in writing in the contract. | zaphar wrote: | One persons moderation is another persons censorship. The | activity of moderation is indistinguishable from the activity | of censorship. The only difference is which group decides the | censorship is acceptable. | | If moderation is just the current group in power gets to | decide what is moderation and what is censorship then I fail | to see the difference. You just redefined the centralization | because I guarantee that group will be smaller than the rest | of the internet. | throw10920 wrote: | > The sheer volume of spam or even just angry/abusive users on | public platforms these days is hard to describe if you haven't | been on the spam/abuse prevention side of a popular website. | | I haven't been on one of those teams, so I hope you'll forgive | the naivety, but: | | These seem like solvable problems with decentralized systems. | In both cases, _someone_ has to go through the work of manually | identifying the bad content, right? In a centralized system, | that 's someone working for the system - in a decentralized | system, that's a random user. | | From a technical perspective, then, the centralized "please | delete this content" message is pushed out the entire system, | while the decentralized message/action can be put into a | blocklist/banlist that other users can subscribe to. I believe | that this is how the Fediverse works, for instance, and it's | definitely how adblocker blacklists work - so this kind of | system is already in effect, and seems to be working decently. | | If the volume of spam is truly extreme, then what's to prevent | you from having distributed blocklists that are fed by | automated processes (as opposed to manual additions), and users | just subscribe to the ones that they trust? | | From a social perspective, users seem to be willing to do this | work themselves, given how driven the users of sites like | Reddit are, with no more reward for posting high-effort content | than a bunch of imaginary internet points, and how effective | adblockers are. | | To summarize - what prevents a decentralized system from taking | the same approaches that a centralized system would employ, | packaging them into blocklists, and then allowing users to | choose which of those they employ? Same tech, different level | of control. | Kalium wrote: | > These seem like solvable problems with decentralized | systems. In both cases, someone has to go through the work of | manually identifying the bad content, right? In a centralized | system, that's someone working for the system - in a | decentralized system, that's a random user. | | It's solvable in the same sense that email spam is solvable. | Much like adblockers, spam is "solved" by re-centralizing. | | > If the volume of spam is truly extreme, then what's to | prevent you from having distributed blocklists that are fed | by automated processes (as opposed to manual additions), and | users just subscribe to the ones that they trust? | | Most users are unequipped to evaluate that and disinterested | in putting in a bunch of work to defend themselves against | the flaws of the system at hand. Like adblockers or email, | most members of the general population want it to be easy, | automatic, and require minimal effort beyond clicking the | button that gets them going. | | Users generally want things to work for them. Investing | deeply in protecting themselves because the system's | designers didn't consider abuse is rarely towards the top of | the priority list. People like things that just work, and the | further a thing is from that the more adoption will struggle. | nostrademons wrote: | This is basically what killfiles were in the days of Usenet. | It worked well for the demographic that was on Usenet at the | time (tech savvy and dedicated). | | I think the problem is that by and large, users are _not_ | willing to do this work themselves. When faced with a social | platform that has a lot of jackasses on it, rather than | individually curate their experience to remove the jackasses, | most of them just leave the platform and find another one | where this work is done for them already. | | And this is why social networks have abuse teams. If it were | totally up to them, they'd rather save themselves the | expense, but users have shown that they will leave a platform | that _doesn 't_ moderate, and so all social platforms are | eventually forced to. | vageli wrote: | A type of shared killfile might work, kind of like how some | people or groups of people curate the lists of ad domains | in ad blockers. | POiNTx wrote: | If I'm hosting an IPFS node and I'm accidentaly hosting | some content I'd rather not host, I should be able to | remove that content from my node and let other nodes know, | 'hey, this stuff seems illegal/unethical/unwanted'. Other | nodes could then configure their node to automatically | listen to you and remove the tagged content, with | parameters of saying 'at least x amount of people tagged | this content' and 'of those people, y amount should have at | least a trust level of z' where the trust level is | calculated from others listening to that specific node. | With blacklist/whitelist behaviour for specific nodes. | Should do the trick but maybe I'm missing something. | nostrademons wrote: | Sure, it works if your starting point is "If I'm hosting | an IPFS node." There's a level of baseline tech-savvy | that's implied by even knowing what that is. | | Understand that most of the general population operates | on the level of "Somebody said something on the Internet | that offends me; how could this have happened?" And that | the _maximum_ amount of effort they 're willing to put in | to rectify this situation is clicking a button. The | realistic amount is that they wish it never happened in | the first place. That's the level of user-friendliness | needed to run a mass-market consumer service. | POiNTx wrote: | Thinking outloud here a bit and being a bit handwavy but I feel | like there's a need for a decentralized 'moderation' to some of | these systems. Where if enough actors think something should be | moderated, it will. I'm not sure what that would look like in | practice. Something like if a 'large enough' (whatever that | means) % of the system that thinks something should be removed, | it will be. In real world systems we do have these procedures | in place, I think pretty much everyone can agree that violent | criminals should be removed from society, what constitutes | 'violent' has been established by hundreds of years of | 'justice' where 'justice' is mostly centralized with some | indirect decentralization from democratic processes. Things | like peertube, IPFS and any type of decentralized content | should have this IMO. | | [EDIT] Seems like these type of systems exist in some projects | reading from futher comments. | agumonkey wrote: | I can't wait for when decentralization fanatics will invent | some kind of order that will very much look like the good old | natural pyramid one can encounter anywhere.. | skulk wrote: | It already exists, the two ideas just haven't been been | combined yet. I'm imagining a decentralized platform with | StackOverflow-style reputation (higher score = more power) | tracked in a blockchain. | agumonkey wrote: | out with old, old is the new new | [deleted] | nonameiguess wrote: | What you're imagining also (sort of) already exists. Credit | reporting agencies, the Better Business Bureau, Yelp, | Angie's List. They're "centralized" in the sense of | reputation data is stored in a database with a single owner | rather than something like a blockchain, but decentralized | in the sense that anyone can submit reports, reviews, or | votes. | | Importantly, a blockchain is not very fit for an | application like this because it is append-only. That makes | perfect sense for a transaction ledger, where you want | immutable history and transactions are reversed by entering | a new transaction with the signs reversed, but you really | want the ability to correct a reputation history by | actually redacting false reports rather than just appending | a correction. | photochemsyn wrote: | > "the ability to correct a reputation history by | actually redacting false reports rather than just | appending a correction..." | | George Orwell's 1984 features a main character whose job | is just this: rewriting history by 'redacting false | reports'. | | Of course well-meaning people will set up these systems | without considering the potential for abuse. In many | cases, persistence is desired - it does matter who said | what when, historical written letters are important | documents, and records of actions also form institutional | histories. Normalizing the 'redacting of false reports' | can easily turn into rewriting history for propaganda | reasons. | | I suppose you could have a two-lane social media system, | one channel where comments and posts were not anonymous | and were recorderd for posterity, and one channel for | anonymous ephemeral chatter. However, trying to run both | channels on one platform might not work, legally or | technologically. | forgotmypw17 wrote: | The major difference between decentralized pyramids and | centralized ones is the size. | | The bigger the size of a network, the more attractive it is | to abusers, while at the same time being more difficult to | manage. | evancoop wrote: | That would suggest an oscillation - network effects to | inflate network sizes, abuse, mismanagement, frustration, | disruption, creation of a new paradigm. Lather, refactor, | repeat? | the-dude wrote: | Isn't email an example of a decentralized system where this | problem has been basically solved? | WalterSear wrote: | I get spam mail and scams all the time. | jacobobryant wrote: | Me too, and the vast majority of time they're delivered to | the spam folder--seems to be working pretty well. | [deleted] | roenxi wrote: | I think this goes a bit deeper to the actual benefit of | decentralised platforms (and open protocols). When the major | player in the space goes haywire there is an option to leave. | | Using Twitter as an example - they are going to be purposefully | and continuously ejecting users. As long as the users are | people who nobody wanted to listen to anyway then that is fine. | | But the situation changes because sooner or later (potentially | already happened) Twitter will eject actual community leaders | and a community will need to reform somewhere else. | | When that happens, open protocols and open platforms will help | the community reform. It is quite hard to stop a community | reforming on the internet for example because there are so many | parallel communication channels that are basically free. So | using Twitter isn't much of a risk because if they go bad then | the community can reasonably move somewhere else. | | People seem to expect "decentralised" leads to some sort of | semi-utopia where everyone has equal status or act like some | sort of saintly community driven by consensus. I don't see how | it can work that way. It really just makes it easier to | transfer power when the currently powerful start acting | abusively. | tenebrisalietum wrote: | > public forum websites | | Bringing together the entire world in one public space is | Twitter and Facebook -- i.e. possibly not a good thing. | | It's recentralization. | | Users of a decentralized _protocol_ may use one or more | decentralized _networks_ but there 's no need for a given | specific decentralized network to be accessible by everyone. | | This does require effort on the part of the user, but that | might be a good thing. Handing things to users on a silver | platter without effort on their part leads to ad-economy driven | manipulation, etc. | pessimizer wrote: | > Decentralization seems to work well for cases where | individuals are privately interacting with other users they | already know. It seems much more difficult to solve the problem | of public forum websites where anyone can contribute content. | | But these don't actually need to exist. Decentralization | doesn't have to mean a flat hierarchy, it could (against all | trends) be a hierarchy with the user at the top, as social | media once looked like. I could select the content I want to | see by selecting the people that I trust and the content that | they approve of, provisionally trusting the people that the | people I trust also trust, and maybe extending that to an | arbitrary number of hops. In that way I can choose my own mods. | | This requires clients that work for the user rather than for | the content creator, complete anathema to major browser | vendors, who divide their time between anti-features to force | their users to do things that they wouldn't want to do if given | a choice, and candy for website owners/developers. | | Labeling spam should punish the connections that caused it to | be surfaced. That might damage serendipity slightly, but the | modern web has run a bulldozer over serendipity with its | engagement metrics algorithmically curating newsfeeds. | | edit: one of the reasons I want (and probably many want) this | kind of control is because I don't want spam, but I _do want | abuse_. I don 't want angry people filtered out as a rule, I | want to be able to make the decision to blacklist specific | angry people, or even people making stupid arguments in good | faith. I want control over my own filter bubble. If that | contracts my www to a gathering of friends and family, so be | it. | | If web 1.0 is simple content consumption, and web 2.0 is users | providing content to each other filtered by powerful rent | seekers, web 3.0 should be user _governance._ The "mod" system | is an authoritarian lack of a governance process, and should be | replaced with tools that aid collective decisionmaking. | jayd16 wrote: | I'm with you except on the argument that decentralized | reputation systems are easy to game. Isn't ssl and therefore | most internet security based around decentralized reputation | through cert validation? | lbotos wrote: | > decentralized reputation through cert validation? | | Certs are pretty dang centralized. | | Also, Your second sentence needs a bit more fleshing out | because it doesn't follow. | jayd16 wrote: | Certs are certainly decentralized. You can create your own | root, share them, etc. There a several highly trusted roots | that are chosen by OS makers, not centralized. Some roots | are quite big but what part is centralized? | | Chain of trust is a decentralized reputation protocol and | we use it frequently and effectively. | rhn_mk1 wrote: | While it's not strictly centralized, as in, there's no | single root, the sets of root certs in usage are | extremely similar. There are only a handful that matter, | and they overlap significantly because they share | choices: Windows, Android, Apple, Firefox, various Linux | distros. | | A contributing factor is that the culture that grew | around them makes it uncommon to be able to manipulate | your own certificates. If you set up a Web page with your | own root cert, you can be sure it will never grow. | nonameiguess wrote: | Mozilla's latest bundle has 148 root CAs in it: | https://ccadb- | public.secure.force.com/mozilla/IncludedCACert... | | So "decentralized" in the sense that there are more than one, | but it's not some hierarchy-less free for all where anyone | can attest to their own identity and trustworthiness and the | network just automatically accepts that. | jayd16 wrote: | Sure it is. You can easily create your own root CA and have | others trust it. | | I don't really understand the complaint because you | literally can attest to your own trustworthiness through | your own cert. | | Having others trust you is a taller order. Obviously that | isn't automatic. | api wrote: | The way I look at it is that deplatforming by the existing | centralized platforms is actually a way for them to create a | more powerful moat. | | Any competitor will immediately be inundated by spam, scammers, | child porn, trolls, and Nazis to name a few. Since bad drives | away good this will make their platform less desirable. The | existence of a highly toxic refugee population deters anyone | from creating competing networks. | | I don't think this was planned or intended, but it works out | this way. | Robotbeat wrote: | That's really well put & I hadn't thought of things that way | before. I think the solution is very active moderation and | barriers put in the place of new account creation. (Gotta | rely on a community of people who already want to be a | community.) | pphysch wrote: | The author touches on some of the weaknesses of true | decentralization but does not directly address the fundamental | paradox. | | True decentralization is a natural but ephemeral quality of | networks with _relatively few_ nodes. That is, scales where each | individual node has enough internal resources to accurately | represent the _entire_ network. Human networks are parameterized | _very roughly_ by Dunbar 's Number (100-250), while modern | computer networks are much more capable. | | As a small network scales up, decentralization becomes unnatural; | nodes and links require too many resources to accurately model | and communicate the network state. It becomes net energy | efficient to introduce layers of dedicated networking nodes, | routing protocols, and entire subnets. It is not a fluke that | "Web3.0/DeFi" technologies so far are either a) tremendously | inefficient or b) end up centralized. | | If you want to preserve true decentralization at this scale, you | need to _enforce_ it. Prohibit centralization in any form. No | more central networking /control nodes. Perhaps there are clever | schemes where you can e.g. shard the entire network uniformly | across its nodes, but the bottom line--the paradox--is that some | _central authority_ must decide on and enforce the sharding | /decentralization policies and _actively_ prevent centralization | from emerging. | | Frankly, decentralization at _almost_ any meaningful scale in our | modern global society is a myth. It 's a myth tightly coupled to | the American origin story and its philosophical roots in the | classical liberalism of Locke et al. and Western/Reformation | Christianity. | | From a hard scientific perspective, it makes no sense why to | sacrifice the welfare of a system for the sake of maximizing the | welfare of an arbitrary component _that depends on the welfare of | the system_. _Especially_ when we are confronted with systemic I | /O imbalances on a global scale. To arrive at the myth of | decentralization, you need the ingredient of (hyper)individualist | ideology. | ItsMonkk wrote: | This mirrors my current thinking. | | Each individual naturally filters out information that they | consider weird, the less they know the person that they are | reading, the farther it is from their viewpoint, the more that | idea will be passed over. | | Each community is made up of the average of the opinions of its | members, and we can collectively track this through the Overton | window. The more people that don't know each-other in a | community, the less their weirdness budgets are, therefore the | slower the community is able to change its mind. This is where | Dunbar's Number comes in, eventually you reach a point where | the Overton window metastasizes and two factions in that | community break apart. | | So what we really need to be asking is... | | 1. Dunbar's number suggests that as a community gets larger, it | should naturally split, why don't digital communities do this? | | One obvious conclusion is that the internet sites that we are | building them on top of do not allow the split. The website is | owned by the web owner, and they want all communication on it, | and they don't have any sharding built in, so we can't split. | | But even when we build sites like Reddit that are inherently | built of many communities and make it extremely easy to create | new communities, we still see concentration of communities. So | it is dismissive just to say it is the owners fault. It must | somehow be that, because digital is so effective, the economies | of scale within the digital space grows and even with the | worsening of communication the community gets stronger with | each member. That is, opinions within the websites Overton | window have such good quality, that it doesn't matter that all | discussion outside the window is ignored. And there are mostly | more people entering than there are leaving, so it works out | until it doesn't. | | And thus as you say, the only option we have to reach beyond | our local maximums is to split the communities soon after we | reach something close to Dunbar's Number. Does that mean each | community would just be 150 people? Does that mean each person | could only be a community of 150 people local to them? No. You | can have a community of the top community members, and that 150 | community would have it's own Dunbar's Number. In fact, this is | mostly what the House of Representatives and the Senate are, or | was before 1920. | pphysch wrote: | > In fact, this is mostly what the House of Representatives | and the Senate are, or was before 1920. | | An interesting observation: the population of the USA since | its founding until today has increased approximately by a | factor of Dunbar's Number. In theory, this would call for the | introduction of another layer of national bureacracy (say, a | Regional level above the individual States). Yet our | political structure has not meaningfully changed, at least | _de jure_ ( _de facto_ I believe it has changed substantially | with the rise of capitalism in the early 20th century). | igorkraw wrote: | If you want to see true decentralisation, look to Europe, | especially Germany, Switzerland etc., but also the EU | | And for an ideology that actually build decentralised but just | systems, I am strangely enamored by anarchists. | | They(except Ancaps) have been working at this for about 1-2 | centuries and it's a hard problem (and not all anarchists are | trying to be smart about it). The only way that I can see to | make it work (in theory) is to find a way to do confederations | of confederations that keep everything more or less manageable | with human interpersonal relationships and "sane" local rules | on each layer and delegate global things upwards, with | shortcuts and balancing mechanisms that make sure the state | apparatus stays decentralised, nimble and controlled bottom up, | not too down. I think Switzerland and Norway as well as some | first Nations are closest to this, but I hope we'll all get | there one day. | pphysch wrote: | Interesting interpretation. In general, Northern Europe is | far less individualistic[1] than USA. Don't mistake deeply | entrenched (perhaps invisible) traditional hierarchies for | the lack thereof. | | I view anarchism as another expression of classical | liberalism, with the same structural faults re: | decentralization, etc. | | [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante | bufbupa wrote: | Interesting perspective, thanks for sharing. Personally I've | always internalized decentralized vs centralized arguments not | as "all nodes communicate peer-to-peer" vs "all nodes negotiate | through common mediums" but rather as a "power is distributed | to leaf nodes" vs "power is consolidated at root nodes". | | I think you're right in that peer-to-peer doesn't scale. I also | don't think many (reasonable) individualist ideologies espouse | that it does either. Individualism isn't renouncing | hierarchical power structures, but rather asserting that the | power rests with the hierarchy's leaves (individuals) not with | the root nodes (collectives). It's the same way the west | leverages a republic rather than direct democracy for it's | legal system. | | Or put another way, the individual leaves should be in control | of the nodes higher up in the hierarchy, not visa versa. Imo, | your interpretation of the debate is missing the real argument | being had here. Decentralization in this a political context is | saying "power should be distributed to leaf nodes as much as | possible". Naturally, those leaves will still organize | themselves hierarchically in the name of efficiency (ie: I'll | elect this official to make decisions on my behalf because i | don't have the time to contemplate every bill/law being | proposed myself). But that hierarchical delegation is still a | distributed/decentralized power structure as long as the people | can freely re-organize into a different hierarchy or elect a | new representative at will. | afiori wrote: | for a decentralized social-like network nodes closer to the | root need to have influence on nodes closer to the leafs, but | leafs also need to move around and maybe connect to multiple | root-like nodes simultaneously. | | One of most successful decentralized system that is useful | for what it was meant to do is DNS, which has this tree-like | delegation in its core | pphysch wrote: | > "power should be distributed to leaf nodes as much as | possible" | | I don't see how this works in practice. Power manifests in | subtle ways. For example, you can have a pure direct | democracy where individual voters nominally carry all the | political power... | | ...but who decides what is on the ballot? Who determines the | _ontology_ of current and future policy decisions? Are | closely-worded policies X ( "ban abortion") and Y ("restrict | abortion") the same policy with shared vote counts or | different policies with separate vote counts? | | If you democratize that power, you are subscribing for | literally endless arguments over semantics. | | See also district gerrymandering. | bufbupa wrote: | I definitely don't have a formulaic answer to that | question, but here are some heuristics that I'll posit | drive us in the right general direction: | | - Freedom of information So that leaves can error correct | when corruption is detected | | - Freedom to re-associate So that leaves can re-organize | when the existing power structure becomes destructive to | the leave's objectives. This may be a contextual or | cultural shift rather than a direct form of corruption. | (Eg: climate change may change many individual's priorities | going forward). Imo pursuing this heuristic should preclude | most forms of identity politics; I'd rather the leaves | associate on philosophical priorities rather than on innate | physical characteristics | | - No special rules for leaves vs nodes higher in the | hierarchy Or perhaps only more restrictive rules for nodes | higher in the hierarchy | | Your examples seem to have went back to a peer-to-peer | model of decentralization; which I was agreed is inherently | inefficient and untenable at scale. You need some | hierarchical distribution of power, it's just that it needs | to stay beholden to the leaves in the hierarchy. The person | who decides what's on the ballot is the individual(s) | elected/appointed to have that job. That person(s) is | likely beholden to some pre-agreed upon rules for how to | phrase questions, and any individual in the society can cry | afoul if they abuse their position or if we need to update | the rules with new considerations. All other leaves can | choose to listen if they want, and choose to respond if | they want, at whatever level of the hierarchy they believe | is best suited to respond to the corruption. The hierarchy | is not rigid, it's dynamic, evolves, and must be allowed to | error correct as each individual sees fit. The only way | that's possible is if it's driven bottom up rather than top | down. | | The objective should be to distribute and localize power as | much as possible, because the more power is centralized, | the more prone to corruption, less efficient, and less | responsive to nuance it becomes. The exact laws and | regulations that achieve that objective? Society is still | working that out, but I'd argue separate judicial, | legislative, and executive branches was a good move in the | right direction. I'd also argue trial by a jury of your | peers was also a solid move in the grand scheme of things. | | I'd argue that same objective holds true for technological | networks as well. | igorkraw wrote: | To answer just what you have in your post with what is the | lives reality of people of Switzerland: | | - anyone who can get 100k people to agree with them decides | what to put on the ballot | | - the parliament, which can shunt responsibility to the | people after a best effort | | - courts, politicians, in the end additional referenda | settle disputes | | District gerrymandering is also a uniquely Anglosphere- | related problem that doesn't cause nearly as many problems | in Germany, Switzerland etc | | With no offense intended, us nerds on Hackernews tend to | lose track of the simple solution ala "just ask people", | "let people have a discussion", "common sense will sort it | out over decades" while the rest of the population has no | problems with things which aren't easily formalized | pphysch wrote: | I agree for the most part, but keep in mind that "old" | nations like Switzerland and Germany have a distinct | advantage here. Family relationships trace back literally | centuries and there is a strong sense of national | tradition, which implies some level of ontological | agreement and makes democracy possible to some extent. | This shortcut does not apply to implementing a | functioning democracy in, say, some "nation" of diverse | ethnic groups arbitrarily carved out by British | imperialists in the 19th or 20th century (see Africa and | West Asia). | | > "common sense will sort it out over decades" | | More like centuries. USA has been a nation for 250 years | yet we are teasing a second crisis of separatism. | Immigration definitely plays a big role here. Political | consensus takes generations to settle. | lkrubner wrote: | Hello, I'm writing about this issue now and I'd like to quote | you. What name should I use to quote you? Feel free to reach me | at: | | lawrence@krubner.com | | 434 825 7694 | photochemsyn wrote: | This is an article about an abstract information economy, not an | article about the effects of decentralized vs. centralized | manufacturing. | | There's a lack of physicality, i.e. consider the difference | between decentralized intellectual property (sharing patents | etc.) and decentralized electronics manufacturing, food | production, or transportation systems. | | Those latter issues taken together result in things like the | current disruption in global supply chains, for which both | everyone and noone is responsible. 'Anyone can build anything' | sounds good, but if your only chip source is China and they have | an energy/pollution crisis and scale back manufacturing, then | what? Wait a few years while the USA gets comparable facilities | up and running, if that's even likely? | | So perhaps you get economies-of-scale advantages with centralized | manufacturing, but security-of-supply advantages with | decentralized manufacturing? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-11-05 23:00 UTC)