Source: DaoShuo Blockchain
In the comments section of the article on CRV, several readers raised questions related to decentralization:
Would it be better for the project if Curve were taken over by the community from a decentralized perspective?
Should decentralization also mean de-founderization, led by the community?
These questions can be further divided into two parts:
1. What does “decentralization” mean to me? What does the general public understand by “decentralization”?
2. Would a project develop better if it follows the general public’s understanding of “decentralization”?
Today, I would like to share my understanding of the first question with everyone.
In several articles in 2020 and 2021, I have shared my understanding of “decentralization”. This topic is often discussed and debated within the community, and each time I come across it, I have different feelings and insights. Therefore, even though it may be a “stale” topic, whenever I discuss it, I do not feel that it is “stale” but rather that it provides me with new perspectives and insights into the entire ecosystem, Bitcoin, and Ethereum.
In the blockchain ecosystem, if we strictly adhere to academic standards, “decentralization” was first mentioned in the Bitcoin whitepaper.
Therefore, my understanding and reflection on “decentralization” originate from the Bitcoin whitepaper.
So, how does the Bitcoin whitepaper describe decentralization?
In simple terms, it means that the Bitcoin network system can complete transactions/transfers without relying on a single institution or organization.
Thus, everything boils down to the basics, where “decentralization” purely refers to a technical meaning: that is, a network system is no longer plagued by the single-point failure issues that servers in traditional C/S structures may encounter.
Specifically for Bitcoin, as long as more than half of the nodes in the network are working normally, the system can operate smoothly, unlike in traditional C/S structures where numerous clients request data from a single server, leading to system failure if the server crashes.
Since then, in early discussions within the Bitcoin ecosystem, almost all topics related to “decentralization” were closely focused on technical implications: how to ensure that there are enough Bitcoin network nodes to minimize the risk of network failure.
Even later, when Blockstream launched satellites into space to run Bitcoin nodes, the underlying motive was still closely related to technology: in case of a global catastrophe on Earth causing the collapse of the internet, humanity would still have Bitcoin running on satellites in space, preserving the flame for all mankind.
At this point, I hope readers take note:
During this process, when our predecessors were rigorously discussing “decentralization,” did they ever discuss removing the leaders of Bitcoin for the sake of decentralization? (Pay attention to my use of “early” and “strict” above.)
No, they did not.
Indeed, leaders in Bitcoin have come and gone, like a revolving door. But it happened naturally, not deliberately.
Next, Vitalik entered the crypto ecosystem and created Ethereum.
In the early days, Vitalik outlined a clearer design and goal for decentralization in Ethereum 2.0 concept articles:
Ethereum should be able to withstand the third world war, even as humans engage in warfare, the Ethereum network should still function normally.
Furthermore, he envisioned a scenario where if due to regional conflicts, such as a country suddenly banning the operation of Ethereum nodes, leading to the Ethereum network splitting or isolating nodes, could the Ethereum network still function normally or quickly recover in a short time.
In this scenario, we can see that Vitalik’s concept of “decentralization” still refers to the technical implications, concerning whether the Ethereum network’s operation could be harmed or destroyed by external forces.
Does this discussion involve decentralizing Ethereum’s leaders?
Again, no.
The above is my understanding of “decentralization”.
In my view, Vitalik’s understanding and ideas about “decentralization” are in line with Satoshi Nakamoto’s: all referring to technical implications, with no involvement in development, operation, or management.
Why did I deliberately emphasize “early” and “strict” in the previous text?
Because later on, as more voices and viewpoints entered the discussion, the discourse on “decentralization” gradually turned into a “topic of interest,” “dinner table gossip,” extending beyond technical implications to issues of management, operation, development, social relationships, and conflicts of interest, gradually taking on connotations of “leaderless,” “coreless,” and “disorganized”———and this mixed connotation has become increasingly understood as “decentralization” by the general public.
Will Curves decentralization be better Part 1
