Evan Shapiro's "Bitcoin’s Stolen Revolution" https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-stolen-revolution is a great opinion piece. However, he doesn't actually describe what crypto is centralization-proof, or what protocols must be in a crypto to make it centralization-proof.
I wrote a short novel of crypto fiction on Hive about a plot for centralization. I liberally took parts of the story from Justin Sun's hostile take-over of Steem--which is why I published it on Hive--but there were notable differences. https://hive.blog/hive-161155/@awbvious/epilogue-this-is-crypto-y-all . To read the short novel, one should start with links at the top. Chapter 12 especially discusses the centralization plot.
I think centralization-proofing can be done in three parts:
- Equate all funds/accounts to one person, who has one vote, once verified.
- Taxes are for verified persons, highest for those with the most funds across all accounts.
- Benefits are by verified devices, highest when localized furthest from others.
1: Governance is one vote per individual, preventing abuse by vote concentration with one person. The amount of funds do not matter. The number of accounts do not matter. A person can have multiple accounts, or more funds than anyone else, but will still get one vote. To have a vote, you must be verified as a unique, sentient being capable of giving consent. Verification will cost a nominal fee paid with the crypto itself. If the person can somehow spoof uniqueness, they cannot be verified, and if spoofing is determined, all funds are forfeited. To fast track, an individual can pay to verify, otherwise free verification slots are occasionally available and paid for by taxes. Once verified that person can be taxed, but also that person can receive benefits, either by operating a benefits-creating device themselves or delegating to one elsewhere in the world.
2: Taxes are highest on the richest, preventing abuse by wealth concencentration. One of the problems with American politics is once Reagan gave tax cuts, the wealthy got wealthier, then they realized they needed to be in politics (even more) to keep those tax cuts, then gave themselves more tax cuts, then money got deeper into politics, etc. It was, and is, a terrible feedback loop. Of course, the threat will always be there, but by starting with high taxes, similarly motivated individuals to corrupt a government will be dissuaded and set their sights on other crypto currencies. Taxes will be used for verification of people for uniqueness so they can vote and devices for location so they can receive rewards, and any surplus will be distributed among the poorest.
3: Benefits are dependent on location and distance, preventing abuse by regional concentration. The closer a device that creates benefits is to other such devices, the less rewards it can create*. Verification can be GPS or similar technology and/or by relating a device spatially to other devices. But if the device allows spoofing location, it cannot receive benefits, and if spoofing is determined, all its previously created benefits are forfeited. Further, the more potentially mobile a device, the more frequent its verification. Like voting, a device can pay to fast-track its verification, otherwise free verification slots are occasionally available and paid for by taxes. While theoretically one country might be able to own and operate the most devices, it would still be difficult for it to then amass the most control via rewards. They would not be able to gain the most rewards unless they spread those devices all over the world, and it would likely be prohibitively expensive to maintain devices far outside of its borders.
*A note about the type of benefits created: Benefits could be Proof of Work mining and/or Proof of Stake staking and/or other methods, but the method(s) should not inherently increase centralization. Global warming and other environmental destructions hurt disproportionately certain groups, particularly the poor who become poorer, and thus have less funds to participate in this or any crypto. This indirectly causes centralization. Thus, at the very least, reward methods should be ecologically friendly or neutral, e.g. transactions should not be more energy-intensive than your average credit card transaction. Likewise, a system that reduces global warming would actually help decentralization. For example, a device must first verify it directly sequesters carbon and in an ecologically friendly way, then it must sequester its operating costs in carbon, after which any extra carbon captured becomes benefit. Location spreading and verification would increase effectiveness. Further, there should be less chance of abuse and "cobra effect," such as when companies in a previous sequestering program made a pollutant just so it could sequester its byproduct. Location spreading would prevent connecting all the devices to a single pollution maker. And connecting to new pollution makers built just for this purpose, before of after verification, can be deterred by verification rules for ecologically friendliness. Such rules would be similar to anti-spoofing rules for location and uniqueness, as one would be swapping one form of centralizing pollution for another, and spoofing would likewise lead to forfeiture. Regardless, what is ultimately important is the overall effect of any benefits method(s) should not inherently increase centralization.
Congratulations @awbvious! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your board And compare to others on the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPTo support your work, I also upvoted your post!
Sometimes the rules are written by those in power for preserving their wealth.
Short answer:
Yes, but if you bake-in safeguards you will be much better off than trying to wrestle the power back later.
Long answer:
I would argue that most times they are. Looking at our own government, one would assume that those "in power" can write laws (legislative), enforce laws (executive), and/or interpret laws (judicial). The more of these branches those "in power" have, the more power they have over laws or "the rules." The more of the branches filled with wealthy individuals, the more likely they will exhibit qualities typical of the wealthy. And I believe wealthy people typically fall into two groups: zero sum and non-zero sum. Zero sum assume that money is limited, if one gains, another loses. Non-zero sum assume that working together two people can make more than the sum of their parts, if one gains, another gains. I know none of the ultra wealthy personally, but I am inclined to think more ultra wealthy are "zero sum." Further, these zero sums will likely feel very inclined to protect their status, and keep the poor poor, as a matter of self survival. As such, the more influence the wealthy have over the three ways rules effect us, assuming the typical proportion of zero sum and non-zero sum that I believe exists in the wealthy also exists among the wealthy in power, the more likely the rules will be zero-sum minded, and aimed at keeping the poor poor. Non-zero sum ultra wealthy definitely would not like the idea of high taxes for the ultra wealthy. I think we need look no further than the Tax Bill at the beginning of our current administration to see that non-zero-sum ultra wealthy likely do have a great deal of power and do use it to write the rules.
That said, the three-branches system of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) is a good example of smart people realizing that you can at least bake-in safeguards into a system. Yes, they were wealthy, but nowhere near as wealthy as the ultra wealthy of today, who are more like the royalty wealthy of their time. They certainly did not want any more kings. Their system did a pretty good job for a couple hundred years of splitting power and putting in checks and balances to prevent one person or group taking control of all, or most, branches. Or, centralization-proofing, if you will.
I am no expert in America history. I may be wrong in this. But it seems from my current perspective that this is the longest one group (specifically, non-zero-sum ultra wealthy) have had so much control. That is, other than the two groups that started it all, namely whites and males, and clearly neither of which are mutually exclusive of the non-zero-sum ultra-wealthy group. And like whites and males had, they have put in their own safeguards to keep their power as long as possible. The parties change, but the taxes never really seem to go back to pre-Reagan levels, do they? Will the non-wealthy have to wait as long as women and non-whites to wrestle even a small amount of power towards them?
Arguably, there is still hope. Yes, it seems like there is a wall of money around the branches, through which only those also made of money can pass through. But the wall might not be able to smell the difference between non-zero-sum money and zero-sum money. Maybe that means some non-zero-sum wealthy will slip through and, once inside, tear down the wall. But I suspect while the money-wall can't smell the difference, the money-people inside can, and will thwart the non-zero-sum wealthy, so that may not work. Or maybe the non-zero-sum wealthy will fund tools that can put cracks in the wall of money, allowing non-money people to slip through. But certainly the zero-sum wealthy are funding tools as well, ones that fortify the wall. And, again, there's still the problem of those already in thwarting anyone who slips in.
I have no solutions here for the current situation with the American government. But I do think there's a lesson. Plan well ahead of time, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Because once it's too late, and centralization occurs, it seems almost impossible to overcome.
My god, you have almost written a complete post in a comment. ;)
My point is no matter who rules in a centralized way, they always want to keep their power and their status, and to remain there. They going to find a way to keep their wealth and keep the other class to work harder!
The real answer is to play smarter than them and find a way for your own wealth accumulation.
Sorry for the delay in response, but at first, I didn't know you had responded because I don't get email notifications (haven't bothered to figure out if they are even possible). Then I spent a few days thinking about it. Here's my response:
That sounds very zero sum.
But, it is true there are parts of life that are zero sum. Effort is one. You can spend your time trying to accumulate money/power/status, or you can spend your time trying to effect the system. Now, I'm not saying doing all of one or the other is most optimal. Doing a little of both might have the most effect. But it is a fact you can't really do two things at once.
So, the question is how much time do you spend on "wealth accumulation" and how much do you spend on "effecting the system."
Honestly, in many times throughout history the choice was much easier, as there was no choice. There were no opportunities to do anything but try "wealth accumulation." I imagine when you are a serf in Medieval Europe, your only option is to work hard at trying to get two blankets to sleep with, instead of just one, before you die. I, for one, would not want to be in that situation, so I am glad I have the opportunity to consider putting some effort toward "effecting the system."
While effort is mostly zero sum, I still believe that cooperation with others can be non-zero sum. I put in a little effort in an area I specialize in, you put in a little effort in an area you specialize in, and the results are more than if either of us tried to do it alone.
That's true if it's "wealth accumulation" or "effecting the system."
Let's say you and I work for a boss in Little Widget Shop to make widgets, each needs to be assembled and tested. You're good at assembling; I'm good at testing. We work on "wealth accumulation" by dividing labor, and our productivity is through the roof. Our boss gives us an award, says "good job," and we get a minor pay increase. Our boss, however, is making 10x as much as he used to.
Now, if we just collectively bargain for a bigger raise, or even be made equal partners with our boss, we're not really "effecting the system"--it's really just more wealth/power/status accumulation. Let's say we become equal partners with the boss, well then we realize we don't need the boss, so we out-vote and get rid of him. Then it's just you and I. Turns out that I have a rich uncle who passes away and I suddenly have more wealth/power, so I push you out and run Little Widget Shop alone. But then Massive Widget Corp pushes Little Widget Shop out. In fact, our old boss, you, and I now all have to work for Massive Widget Corp. And the guy who runs Massive Widget Corp has all the wealth/power/status and everyone else has effectively none.
We could try "effecting the system"--and actually fail. You and I leave Little Widget Shop and join the Decentralized Widget Collective A. Everything goes well at first, but the rules at Decentralized Widget Collective A are not very robust. A few people figure out how to turn Decentralized Widget Collective A into Centralized Widget Collective A. Which soon becomes Centralized Widget Corp A. Which eventually is bought out by Massive Widget Corp. And we all end up working for Massive Widget Corp, including the guys who sold Centralized Widget Corp A, and one guy gets all the wealth/power/status.
Finally, we could try "effecting the system"-- and actually succeed. We join Decentralized Widget Collective B. Decentralized Widget Collective B has very, very robust rules that make it very, very hard for anyone to have all the wealth/power/status. The Decentralized Widget Collective B gets more people, so much more that they can actually compete with Massive Widget Corp. Massive Widget Corp tries to take it over, tries to buy it out, tries everything, but fails. This is the only scenario in which one guy does not own all the wealth/power/status.
Of course, will Decentralized Widget Collective B always work? Or will someone find a way to weaken the rules of Decentralized Widget Collective B and will there be a new Massive Widget Corp B that will take advantage of these weakened rules? Will democracy always succeed or will sometimes democratic freedoms slowly erode and eventually an autocrat takes over? I suspect it has a lot to do with how robust the rules of democracy/decentralization are. I don't know what those rules are or should be, but I think it is worth the effort to try to come up with them. Even if it means sacrificing effort that could be spent on wealth accumulation. Because in the wealth accumulation game eventually one guy gets it all, and I doubt very highly it would be me.
You need to be adaptive in the situation that is in front of you between wealth accumulation of affecting the system like you mentioned many times in your comment.
Yes, we are in agreement, sometimes accumulate, sometimes effect. Especially since, when money is made most important in a system, it might be the only way to make a change to the system, such as making it less important. The tricky thing is knowing when to do either, and whether it'll be possible to switch between the two, seeing, as again, power corrupts etc. You may think, finally, I have enough for myself to be comfortable, but what about your immediate family, what about providing for decendents... Is it simply power corrupt or is it more that people who seek it are ambitious types who would continually be ambitious. Would it occur to those who wanted wealth to then change the system from being controlled by wealth. I have none of these answers.
I have been reading a book called "Algorithms to Live By" and I just read a page about bacterial resistance (p 200 in the paperback). The question in the 1940s was does bacterial resistance to viruses occur because the bacteria responds to a virus or because random chance. Salvador Luria realized that if you raised multiple generations of different lineages, and then exposed them all to a virus, if it were reaction they'd all have roughly the same amount of resistance. If it were chance mutation, it would be more wildly dispersed. Those that mutated earlier in ancestors, would pass it on to all, they'd all survive. Those later would have it fewer descendants with resistance. Some would have no resistance. That is what he found. When I think about rich people who stop amassing wealth and then distribute wealth, I notice it is generally the same. Either not at all, or a little, or everything. A person evolves over time, like bacteria over generations. This suggests that an evolution early on, not something after they've amassed wealth, leads them to give back or perhaps effect the system. Thus, this gives credence to the idea that if a person truly does not want to live/act zero sum, wants to change things later, that once they receive wealth they will be more likely to have "resistance" to the "virus" of "power corrupts." Otherwise, there would be more even amount of "giving back." Real data would need to corroborate this, but anecdotally this gives me hope that someone with good intentions will do good things with money. It also gives me little hope for those who have accumulated wealth/power and have a history since their earliest evolution (childhood) of being zero-sum, or worse charges against their character.