On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 22:13:41 +0100 rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:
It's not centralized in a way Facebook is, for example. While e-mail was obviously never a p2p system, it was not a centralized system. The idea was decentralized, federated among *many* servers.
Oh, I see what you mean.
Such was also the idea in BitCoin. As we can see, there's a secondary (not protocol-level) centralisation happening there. Cartels emerge, because economy of scale makes them viable, and indeed profitable.
Hmm, I'm not sure if there's any particular way to solve that problem for BitCoin. I can't imagine any ways of establishing consensus among a completely decentralized protocol other than by popular consensus of the participants, and popular consensus can be manipulated easily as the post you mentioned shows. Maybe decentralization ought to be left to communications only?