What if "blockchain" just meant "a single machine that many people run"?
The idea here is that a blockchain isn't a bunch of decentralized machines... it's a bunch of machines building *one unified abstract machine*. Useful for decentralized agreement on sequential operations.
But I also think *convergent decentralization* is being dramatically over-hyped. And that's no shocker because that's where the $$$ is. But it's not where the most important research needs to go.
So okay, for the rest of it, well that's what @spritelyproject is for...
Oops i accidentally split this thread in two, other half is at https://octodon.social/@cwebber/107492636810769669
@cwebber I haven't seen a proof-of-anything blockchain yet that doesn't either use more resources than it's worth, or creates/maintains a weird power structure between participants that will only be net positive for a minority. I've looked, argued about it, and so far, nobody has managed to show me something working.
I'm all for the git-as-blockchain kinds of systems where that doesn't exist, but that's not what people call blockchain. So I'd rather stay away from the term.
@jens yeah I talked about that over on the birdsite https://twitter.com/toba/status/1473752997083627520
the distinction between the convergence to cosntitute a single distributed machine and the communication among distinct machines (distributed or not) is, to me, something new
it's enlightening and insightful
I still don't understand the PoW/PoS thing and the Catp thing
But at least now I have a geography of the continent, if you allow me this analogy
everything attempted to read previously was, frankly, too abstract, rethorical and lenghty
so this is a substantil progress, a fundamental bit
I think this should be consoldated in a blog post somewhere
I find the convergence interesting personally. It devises a strong solution to the "consent" aspect of "consensus", as in, "here is why I'd bother to participate". That's a carrot and stick problem. Most of computing has added consensus sticks(systemic enforcement and monitoring mechanisms) and an occasional carrot(video gam, cat picture), while "Blockchain" adds a whole lot of carrot($$$) with very few sticks.
That specific incentive is wildly suited for people who can "think" in finance - and, lo and behold, the financial industry is really the one sector that's all over it and leading the way; not the rest of tech or other markets. While outsiders are indifferent or hostile to seeing new finance carrots, insiders looking for disruption are jumping up and down in excitement. This is their chance to reset the board and the rules. It's not very principled, but it does let them try new stuff, like any useful tech.
I agree there's no tech that decentralizes everything. We're mostly just accumulating options for centralizing at different scales.
@cwebber this has the potential to get confusing in discussions around stellar's "quorum slices," as they've basically found a quorum based mechanism that works with open membership.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!