I have been on Steemit for over 7 months now, and one thing I have noticed is that around 90% of people in the platform don't fully know how the blockchain works. Sure it is somewhat complicated, but A LOT of people don't even bother reading the FAQ's and understanding how it fully works. All they know is that the platform gives out free money.
And whenever money is involved, people go bananas. People will try to game the system and those people are most always the one who loves to complain about the unfairness in the platform. "Why is that guy getting more rewards than I am?" "Why is this platform not upvoting me". So to answer your question, unless people start to care about how the platform and blockchain fully works or make it more user-friendly, then NO! it is still not ready for decentralizing everything.
You CANNOT decentralize everything. Decentralization inherently has certain strengths and weaknesses. A lot of activities and platform will be on a scale of being remotely to totally decentralized.
The internet as we now know it is truly decentralized information. With cryptocurrency, we have decentralized money. So, when many facets of information and human interaction becomes decentralized, it will be easier for segments of society to adopt it. Especially, the youth and tech savvy folks.
Let humanity be on a path to decentralization but with babysteps. 😊
In theory, it seems like everything can be decentralized. The key question to ask is whether the benefits of decentralization outweighs the cons. Some things are more efficient when decentralized while others not so much.
For instance the banking system can be more decentralized. There are a lot of money being spent on audits and compliance in the banking sector because we do not trust them. Imagine if we have a trustless decentralized banking platform, such costs wouldn't be incurred.
However, imagine if we are trying to build a decentralized traffic guiding system. There is no clear benefit in doing so.
So to answer your question, I think humanity is not ready to decentralize everything. However, we are on the path to decentralize whatever makes sense to be decentralized. Because humans are always on the path to improve efficiency
To break it simply, it's like asking 'is it possible to cure cancer?'.
The ideal answer is that, yes. The real answer, however, would be not possible.
I am answering this question based on utilitarianism, where individuals or groups would maximise their own profits/ utility. In the case of cancer, unfortunately, there would be conflict of interests between the researcher, general public and the pharmaceutical companies. Researchers and pharmaceutical companies (not all) basically need funding or profits to sustain their work. However, general public would need the cure to minimize their costs in medical treatment (in other words, increase their utility). Unfortunately, there would be no true solution for this, as both parties will always fight to maximize their utility.
The problem with decentralization is that, there would always be a central entity who would not be willing to give up the centralization power. This means, there would not be a truly decentralized society at all. The only way to solve this fallacy is to share the same goal and value.
In Steemit, it is evident that not all of the participants are willing to add value to the system. Instead, they are just here for easy money. Unless a common value is established amongst all the participants, the true decentralization of Steemit would not be possible at the moment. Particularly, the usage of vote bot and self-voting are actually bad for curating organic article on the platform, but people still use it anyway.
Ok, people just started decentralising things. Decentralisation has its won limitations. If human wants then it possible by a time . But in my opinion everything shouldn't be decentralized.
Honestly, NO!
I have been on Steemit for over 7 months now, and one thing I have noticed is that around 90% of people in the platform don't fully know how the blockchain works. Sure it is somewhat complicated, but A LOT of people don't even bother reading the FAQ's and understanding how it fully works. All they know is that the platform gives out free money.
And whenever money is involved, people go bananas. People will try to game the system and those people are most always the one who loves to complain about the unfairness in the platform. "Why is that guy getting more rewards than I am?" "Why is this platform not upvoting me". So to answer your question, unless people start to care about how the platform and blockchain fully works or make it more user-friendly, then NO! it is still not ready for decentralizing everything.
You CANNOT decentralize everything. Decentralization inherently has certain strengths and weaknesses. A lot of activities and platform will be on a scale of being remotely to totally decentralized.
The internet as we now know it is truly decentralized information. With cryptocurrency, we have decentralized money. So, when many facets of information and human interaction becomes decentralized, it will be easier for segments of society to adopt it. Especially, the youth and tech savvy folks.
Let humanity be on a path to decentralization but with babysteps. 😊
In theory, it seems like everything can be decentralized. The key question to ask is whether the benefits of decentralization outweighs the cons. Some things are more efficient when decentralized while others not so much.
For instance the banking system can be more decentralized. There are a lot of money being spent on audits and compliance in the banking sector because we do not trust them. Imagine if we have a trustless decentralized banking platform, such costs wouldn't be incurred.
However, imagine if we are trying to build a decentralized traffic guiding system. There is no clear benefit in doing so.
So to answer your question, I think humanity is not ready to decentralize everything. However, we are on the path to decentralize whatever makes sense to be decentralized. Because humans are always on the path to improve efficiency
View this answer on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
Theoretically, it would not be possible.
To break it simply, it's like asking 'is it possible to cure cancer?'.
The ideal answer is that, yes. The real answer, however, would be not possible.
I am answering this question based on utilitarianism, where individuals or groups would maximise their own profits/ utility. In the case of cancer, unfortunately, there would be conflict of interests between the researcher, general public and the pharmaceutical companies. Researchers and pharmaceutical companies (not all) basically need funding or profits to sustain their work. However, general public would need the cure to minimize their costs in medical treatment (in other words, increase their utility). Unfortunately, there would be no true solution for this, as both parties will always fight to maximize their utility.
The problem with decentralization is that, there would always be a central entity who would not be willing to give up the centralization power. This means, there would not be a truly decentralized society at all. The only way to solve this fallacy is to share the same goal and value.
In Steemit, it is evident that not all of the participants are willing to add value to the system. Instead, they are just here for easy money. Unless a common value is established amongst all the participants, the true decentralization of Steemit would not be possible at the moment. Particularly, the usage of vote bot and self-voting are actually bad for curating organic article on the platform, but people still use it anyway.
Ok, people just started decentralising things. Decentralisation has its won limitations. If human wants then it possible by a time . But in my opinion everything shouldn't be decentralized.
View this answer on Musing.io