| > > This doesn't mean that research into decentralized & computationally-assured data storage techniques shouldn't be pursued. > No, it doesn't, for one simple reason: blockchains is not the only such tech Again, reiteration must be applied here: The standard single-shard reference-to-previous-block data structure that is the initial blockchain structure is non-conducive towards decentralized data storage. As stated beforehand: > > The data structure of a typical blockchain that is regularly talked about (single-chain, no shard/web) definitely cannot store that level of data. In order to reach that level of data throughput, better data structures are required to do so. > , and "computational assuredness" probably isn't really a requirement for this. Towards the latter half of your statement, if computational assurance is not required, then standard trust-based storage solutions can be implemented instead. HOWEVER (and it should be stressed with extreme emphasis on the word), in that scenario, concerns about the centralized nature of such a storage solution CANNOT be launched by critics: It was their criticism of decentralized storage solutions that caused the shift towards standard trust-based storage solutions, and thus they cannot criticize the move towards the latter. Otherwise, their criticism is not out of technical concern, but out of personal opinion. |
This sounds like a rant devoid of meaning.
Yes, there are centralized solutions. Yes, there are decentralized solutions. Yes, critics have full right to criticize both, because both have their failings.
This has literally nothing to do with whatever ideological angle you're trying to force.