|
|
|
|
|
by yavor-atanasov
758 days ago
|
|
We like creating decentralised technologies to then graviate around centralised services built on top. The Internet was meant to be decentralised (it still is in terms of the protocols that make it work), but then we ended up consuming very much centralised services. Bitcoin's decentralised in terms of technology, but then we are centralising in terms of exchanges, wallets etc. I guess the decentralisation aspects of a given technology just means it's a resilient building block. And since the only way we make sense of things nowadays is through markets, it's inevitable we starting building and consuming centralised services. I'm not saying centralisation is good or bad btw, but I do share the irony in your reply, mostly because I find it funny when a new tech is being sold as new way of doing something in a decentralised way. |
|
If everything is already covered without such freedom, or you don’t care about what’s not covered (or failed to conceive it), then you don’t really mind having the freedom or not. It doesn’t change much.
Gmail is a good email client — email being decentralized is only relevant to me if I wanted to get off gmail to go to say fastmail. But if I didn’t, what do I care whether the underlying protocol is centralized or not?