Distributed protocols that combat economy of scale

juan juan.g71 at gmail.com
Sun Mar 6 13:34:42 PST 2016


On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 16:41:05 +0100
rysiek <rysiek at hackerspace.pl> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> as "A Miner Problem" shows,

	Sorry is there any other source/analysis for popescu's claims? 


> even a distributed, p2p solution like
> BitCoin suffers from a secondary centralisation flaw. 
	
	Actually, if the cartel exists, what it shows is a flaw in the 
	bitcoin protocol.

	A look at the original bitcoin paper suggests that the
	author(s) didn't bother too much with the network side of
	things. Didn't forsee the use of specialized hardware. Et
	cetera.

	"The network itself requires minimal structure." 

	"The network is robust in its unstructured simplicity." 

	Looks like it isn't...

 
> Simply put,
> economy of scale lets the biggest player or a cartel of thoise
> basically undermine the "decentralized" part and take control over
> the network.

> 
> A similar thing has happened with e-mail and GMail.


	Good example. Because google isn't the result of 'economy of
	scale' but it's a great example of what the state can
	accomplish using a 'private' facade. 


> GMail basically
> dictates the rules in the e-mail world, simply because they're the
> largest and have the most users. Again, economy of scale is to blame.
> 
> So let me pose a question here: is it possible to design a protocol
> that does not succumb to economy of scale-based secondary
> centralisation? Is it possible to design a protocol that does not
> lend itself to economy of scale?
> 




More information about the cypherpunks mailing list