Decentralize Everything? Yes! Please!
If "decentralization" isn't already the new great buzzword then it will be soon enough. Sometimes buzzwords are a product of exaggerated claims and over the top marketing campaigns. At other times buzzwords are the result of years of scientific research, hard work, and maybe even some luck. But what buzzwords almost always achieve is hype.
A friend recently asked me whether "decentralization" was the good type of hype or the bad? My views are obviously subjective and based on my own research and educational background as well as my general worldview which I allow to be influenced by Physics and first principles thinking.
I have to be honest I am bullish about the crypto space because of several factors - science, technology, mathematics, philosophy, politics, economics.. Anyone who has gone down the crypto rabbit hole knows that crypto is a tour de force with potential success stories lurking at every corner. But amidst all the potential and all the buzz there are several bad actors and bad projects that are giving the potentially great projects a bad rep. So if we are going to claim to be critical thinkers then we have to take a step back every once in a while and ask ourselves - "Are we fooling ourselves into believing something that isn't possible?"
So I took a step back and examined two claims that we as a crypto community often make, before giving my friend an answer.
Claim 1 - Decentralization is good for the world!
Everyone reading this has grown up watching centralized institutions like governments, central banks, and corporate hierarchies around the world do some good things and some bad things to society. One of the reasons why decentralization is such an appealing idea to many people is that when these trusted centralized powers do bad things more often than not they get away with it and are not penalised for bad, corrupt, or even "evil" behaviour.
So it seems to me that the problem isn't that centralization is inherently bad. The problem is that centralization isn't good enough and there is overwhelming evidence of that in financial markets, politics, and corrupt corporate practices. Centralization rewards good people who do good things but it also often rewards bad people who do bad things. That doesn't sound like a world most people would want to live in.
I have read enough philosophy to know that life isn't supposed to be easy but we aren't asking for easy. We are asking... I should rephrase that... we are demanding a fair and balanced system, or at least an attempt at a more fair and balanced system that rewards for good social, ethical, moral, or economic behaviour and penalises for bad social, ethical, moral, or economic behaviour without succumbing to Authority.
Of course, behaviour can be subjective and even deep ethical and moral beliefs can be subjective across cultures. But we are in the year 2018 and there are enough universally accepted moral and ethical behaviours across cultures. The challenge is translating these universaly accepted ideas into non-trivial reward and penalty fairplay mechanisms/structures. We just want to give game theory a chance. But not game theory alone. Cryptography, computer science, economics, AND game theory.
Decentralization, therefore, shouldn't necessarily be seen as a move away from trusted centralized powers, rather it can be viewed as a move towards distribution of power with fairplay as the intended goal. If we fail to achieve the intended goal once then we can change distributed governance mechanisms and continue experimenting with more decentralization and "better" distribution of power.
As far as I can see the decentralization proposed by cryptoeconomic systems is an attempt at fairplay for all. The Steem blockchain is an attempt at the same. So is bitcoin. So is ethereum. So is BitShares. So is EOS. So is Blockstack. And so are many other projects. These attempts may have their own respective flaws but making attempts is better than accepting the status quo and doing nothing about it.
To me this claim seems to have a lot of weight so yes I do agree that decentralization in the way that I described above is good for the world.
Claim 2 - Too much decentralization will bring about chaos
The reason I started this post describing decentralization as a buzzword is precisely because of this claim. It seems to me that some people are confusing decentralization with "chaos". These people rather conveniently replace the word "chaos" with "crypto-anarchy". Nothing could be further from the truth.
You may disagree with me but I have massive respect for the Cypherpunk movement and their crypto-anarchic views. If it weren't for these early and ongoing ideas revolving around crypto-anarchy then public key cryptography, and by extension the current crypto space itself, would simply not be the force that it has become. Without these ideads, powerful encryption technology would still be at the mercy of certain governments and the secure transfer of value over the internet using even the current internet banking infrastructure would be a daydream.
I would argue that decentralization is the diffusion of power, not the introduction of chaos. While this diffusion of power may have its roots in crypto-anarchy it certainly doesn't amount to chaos. I will keep reminding you that we are on Steem. Steem works. It has its flaws. But it works. I know someone who went from being broke to making a living through Steem. They paid medical expenses for their family members that they simply could not afford earlier. This is the first of its kind decentralized and distributed system and it has already saved a life that I know of and I am sure there are many other similar stories that I am unaware of.
Philosophical chaos isn't known to save lives. Also, let's stop confusing mathematical chaos theory used in the design of cryptographic primitives with philosophical chaos, shall we? There is order in mathematics even when there is chaos (pun very much intended).
EOS plans to be an even more decentralized system. And I am hoping there are more EOS on their way. I am hoping Steem grows exponentially. I am also hoping Ethereum solves its scalability issues soon enough. I am in nobody's crypto camp. I am in all camps that have the potential to save and change lives. And I would like to believe there are many others who feel the same.
So the answer to "Are we fooling ourselves into believing something that isn't possible?" is an emphatic 'No'. We aren't kidding ourselves into believing that decentralized systems that create value for society may be possible someday. We are living in that world now. Bitcoin happened. Ethereum happened. Steem happened. Smartcontracts are happening. All of these create value in different ways and not necessarily in ways we initially thought they would.
So my answer was that decentralization is the good hype. But we have a lot to do and a long way to go before we can live in a truly decentralized world and that will potentially happen when we make honest and consistent attempts to decentralize everything.
"I was taught that the way of progress was neither swift nor easy."
Marie Curie
Check out my previous posts:
- Everything John Oliver forgot to tell you about EOS!
- A general purpose blockchain-based gaming model
- Modern Slavery and the Steem Blockchain Engine of Economic Prosperity
If you like my work kindly upvote, resteem it to your friends, and follow me - @shikharsri
Coins mentioned in post: