say it with me: πŸ‘ crpyto πŸ‘ currenency πŸ‘ is πŸ‘ not πŸ‘ decentralized πŸ‘


@sofia there is always the need for a central network of nodes that must be avalible. imo decentral would be your smartcard being able to negotiate trust with an air-gapped terminal. cryptocurrencies reward distrust in others, exactly the opposite of what we need.

Β· Β· Web Β· 3 Β· 0 Β· 2

@maris well, you need a connection to one of the nodes in the network to be connected to the network. it would defeat the point of a currency if people were all isolated in their own little peergroups.

i'm not sure how the network layer works nowadays, i think it used to be something like IRC, which is of course centralized, but at the time there was talk about fixing that 🀷.

@maris i'm not sure how you can make a currency with smartcards and air-gapped terminals, i can't tell you how decentralized that would be.

as for trust, i think there is some poor choice of words by the makers of distributed systems by describing them as "trustless". the problem of the centralized systems is that they have "authorized" points of control that people don't really have a good reason to trust in the first place. perhaps a more fitting term would be "ungovernable", at ideally.

@maris @sofia OK so say we have a system where you have a card loaded with credits and you go to an airgapped terminal and spend a credit. All is well and good. This can be done. But what happens when you then go and spend it again at another terminal? How do the people who run the terminals determine who gets the credit?

@maris @sofia
> a central network of nodes
How does that make sense? A network is inherently decentralised.
Sign in to participate in the conversation – a Fediverse instance for & by the Chaos community