[briatx]

Repeat after me: The Internet is already decentralized. The web is already decentralized.

Blockchains do not have a monopoly on decentralization. People who assert this are trying to redefine the term to mean some kind of extreme P2P model that fits their narrative.

[hazz99]

Repeat after me: It's effectively centralised. It's effectively centralised.

Almost all our traffic goes through Google, Amazon and Facebook. It's extremely centralised.

Blockchain a don't claim to have a monpoloy - they're just the most recent thing that's repopularised decentralisation.

If Amazon servers go down, so does a significant portion of the internet. That's centralisation at work!

Blockchain tech doesn't claim to have a monopoly on the term 'decentralisation', it's just re-popularised the technology.

[briatx]

> Repeat after me: It's effectively centralised. It's effectively centralised.

So is bitcoin. Only 3 or 4 companies own the majority of mining.

Companies on the internet are centralized, but not the internet itself.

[hazz99]

Yeah, Bitcoin-based consensus probably isn't the best choice for a project like this. I'd love to see a project that uses non-blockchain (but similarly publicly immutable) tech, like Nano or Iota.

Still some issues with centralisation (since consesus is achieved through vote delegates), but that's much easier to fix than redistributing hashpower.