06-30-2016, 01:57 AM | #1 |
Fractals!
|
Decentralization
First, I'm making this just so the self-offing ideation stops being the last post. Second, I've been talking with a bunch of guys that are elbow-deep in it.
In brief, decentralization is the idea that services should move away from having any single point of failure, whether it's the Internet, global banking, or other essential services. Bitcoin is an example of a decentralized service that replaces the need to trust in a fallible person or institution when buying something with a trust in mathematics. By basically solving equations, you generate "proof of work" which is the basis for the value of the currency, instead of the say-so of a government. This idea can be extended to other things as well, and could eventually lead to a lack of reliance on big internet service providers like Comcast or Google. Anyone here remember Heartbleed and how scary that was, given how widely OpenSSL was used? This is what happens when a central point of failure is shown to have a weakness. Here's a good primer on the subject. If you wanna get involved, I have a link available on request, but the first point of discussion is this: What's an example of an institution you can think of that can benefit from being decentralized, and how would it benefit? |
06-30-2016, 02:38 AM | #2 |
Very Grave Indeed
|
Re: Decentralization
I think the issue is that while decentralization can move a service away from a single point of failure, making it more resistant to a catastrophic failure of the system, each additional point of relegation is an addition source of inefficiencies. It's a risk/efficiency proposition as far as I've ever considered it.
One central authority, if it is actually doing a good job is far more efficient. Better able to implement changes across the whole system, ensure it is functioning consistently and properly, and better deal with a crisis anywhere in the system. Of course if that central authority isn't doing a good job, everybody is basically screwed because, who else you going to get to do it? It's an interesting dichotomy, because for a lot of things (sanitation, fire departments) decentralization seems perfectly safe and reasonable and a good way to unbloat bureaucracy, but for a lot of things (education, health care) I care far more about ensuring that everybody has equal access to services than I am that those services be as efficient as possible. Product of my Canadian upbringing I'm sure. |
06-30-2016, 04:30 AM | #3 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4
|
Re: Decentralization
Well i would think that our way of life shouldnt be "centralized" ideologically. As in, the whole world shouldnt be forced to rely on a global supply chain. For those dealing with the brunt of a systemof resource aquisition, when faced with an external(central) failure, it is much easier for the agent to control a system that relies on things they are capable of changing themselves. In other words, the more someone is autonomous, the less they are effected by external events that result from centralized ideologies or lines of supply. The more esoteric something is, the more it is impervious to external(central) influences. To rely on a central supply chain is to make yourself vulnerable to anything that might effect that supply chain. You effectively become a slave to things beyond your control.this idea of decentralization is quite revolutionary when fully realized
Last edited by MrPopadopalis24; 06-30-2016 at 04:37 AM.. Reason: The first word in quotes is "centralized", not decentralized. I wrote this on a flip phone |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|