In the comments of the article on CRV, several readers asked several questions related to "decentralization":
If Curve is taken over by the community, would it be better for the project from a decentralization perspective?
The so-called decentralization should also mean de-founderization, led by the community?
These questions can be further divided into two:
What do I understand by "decentralization"? What does the general public usually understand by "decentralization"?
Would a project's development according to the general public's understanding of "decentralization" be better?
Today, I will share my understanding of the first question with everyone.
In several articles in 2020 and 2021, I have shared my understanding of "decentralization". This topic is often mentioned and discussed in the industry, and every time I see this topic, I have different feelings and insights. Therefore, although it is an "old-fashioned" topic, every time I share this topic, I never feel that it is "old-fashioned", but rather it gives me new perspectives and insights into the entire ecosystem, Bitcoin, and Ethereum.
In the blockchain ecosystem, if we strictly adhere to academic standards, "decentralization" was first mentioned in the white paper of Bitcoin.
Therefore, my understanding and contemplation of "decentralization" originate from the white paper of Bitcoin.
So, how does the white paper of Bitcoin describe decentralization?
In summary, it means not relying on a single institution or organization, the Bitcoin network system can complete transactions/transfers.
So, everything goes back to the basics. "Decentralization" purely refers to a technical meaning: that is, a network system is no longer constrained by the single-point failure problem that servers in traditional C/S structures may encounter.
Specifically for Bitcoin, as long as more than half of the nodes in the network are working normally, the system can operate normally, unlike in traditional C/S structures where many clients request from a single server, and once the server fails, the entire system crashes.
From then on, in the early discussions in the Bitcoin ecosystem, almost all topics related to "decentralization" were closely related to technical meanings: how to ensure that there are enough Bitcoin network nodes to minimize the risk of the Bitcoin network crashing.
Even later, when Blockstream launched satellites into space to run Bitcoin nodes, the starting point was still closely related to technology: if a global war broke out on Earth and the human internet collapsed, we would still have artificial satellites in space running Bitcoin in a satellite network, preserving the fire for all humanity.
I hope readers pay attention to this:
In this process, when our early predecessors strictly discussed "decentralization," did they discuss "decentralization" as removing the leaders of Bitcoin? (Please note my use of "early" and "strict")
No, they did not.
Indeed, the leaders of Bitcoin changed from one to another, as if the camp was ironclad and the soldiers were ever-flowing. But that was a natural occurrence, not deliberate.
Next, Vitalik entered the crypto ecosystem and led the creation of Ethereum.
In the early days, in Vitalik's conceptual articles about Ethereum 2.0, the design and goals of decentralization for Ethereum were more explicit:
Ethereum should be able to withstand the third world war of humanity, even if humanity is engaged in a major war, the Ethereum network should still function normally.
In addition, he also envisioned that in the event of regional conflicts, such as a country suddenly banning the operation of Ethereum nodes, leading to the Ethereum network being suddenly divided or isolated between nodes, whether the Ethereum network could still operate normally or recover rapidly in a very short time.
In this scenario, we can also see that Vitalik's conception of "decentralization" still refers to the technical meaning, whether the operation of the entire Ethereum network would be harmed and destroyed by external forces.
Did he talk about decentralizing the leaders of Ethereum?
No, he did not.
The above is my understanding of "decentralization".
In my understanding, Vitalik's understanding and conception of "decentralization" are in line with Satoshi Nakamoto's: all of them refer to the technical meaning, without involving development, operation, and management.
Why did I deliberately emphasize "early" and "strict" in the previous text?
Because later, with more and more voices joining in, and the mixing of more and more viewpoints, discussions on "decentralization" gradually turned into "interesting topics," "dinner table gossip," extending from the pure technical meaning to social relationships and interests such as management, operation, and development, gradually sounding like "leaderless," "coreless," "unorganized," and a series of loose and vague implications, and this mixed meaning has become more and more understood by the general public as "decentralization."
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
