[systemvoltage]

I think the evidence is not so clear, it seems circumstantial and situational on what humans prefer. Humans invented the internet and email which is extremely decentralized. Datacenters are centralized but edge computing is decentralized. Constitutionalists across the world preferred dencentralizing powers of the central/federal governments to a certain degree. We like decentralizing supply chains to reduce risks but also centralizing them for reducing costs (supplier-to-supplier logistics). The world is literred with examples from either end of the spectrum.

[neojebfkekeej]

Both centralized and decentralized systems can have a central authority. All of the examples above have one or more of such authorities. The fundamental premise of a blockchain is antithetical to this

[TrapLord_Rhodo]

maybe in premise but not reality.

Everything trends towards centralization. Tech especially. All the top chains are heavily centralized in (Hash rates, holdings, influence, Insert blockchain metric here). Blockchains has trended towards centralized entities and personalities and i expect the trend to continue.

[neojebfkekeej]

This also makes it unlikely to be widely adopted. In a centralized evolution of the blockchain, rather than run by a widely public, known, and possibly elected entity, these nodes are run by an anonymous collective. That’s a regression in the trust-value chain for most real world applications

[TrapLord_Rhodo]

Well, that's my point. We went from

>these nodes are run by an anonymous collective

up until around 2017, that's how blockchain worked and gained traction.

And now most high level entities in blockchain tech now have identities/companies and individuals associated with them. Twitter has allowed these identities to stay 'psuedo-anonymous' sometimes but their 'identities' and leadership influence over the chain/ pools and infrastructure has remained.

>That’s a regression in the trust-value chain for most real world applications

Blockchain trustlessness is the whole value.