Practitioners hate the cloud platform of internet giants because it makes data storage not centralized enough; Hate the emergence of monopoly giants in the industry, because it makes the industry pattern not centralized enough; I also hate centralized leadership, because it makes the decision-making mechanism not centralized enough, and even I hate working in an office, because it makes people's activities not concentrated enough ... Now many practitioners are a little "centralized" in their words and deeds, so they are hesitant and afraid of being caught by the outside world.
So, what is "decentralization"? What is its essence?
The Sinking of Power: the Real Essence of Decentralization
In fact, for decentralization, the author has been [the prospect of blockchain 3.0: is the decentralized community a chicken rib or a future? The article points out that decentralization is not a subjective trend promoted by people, let alone a false proposition advocated by blockchain practitioners, but an objective and inevitable result of economic and technological development. In other words, the trend of social decentralization is the result of everyone voting with the same foot under the existing structure, and it does not depend on people's subjective will.
If you don't believe me, let's review the richness of scientific and technological products-civil cars before the big bang of blockchain industry, so that more and more people can participate in the passenger service that only passenger transport and taxi companies can engage in in in the past, thus realizing the decentralization of driving services; With a smart phone in hand, everyone has the opportunity to record the world around them with a lens, thus realizing the decentralization of photography and video rights; The internet extending in all directions gives every individual the opportunity to make his own voice, thus realizing the decentralization of the right to speak; The popularity of e-commerce platform is to let those who have the ability and intention to open stores have the opportunity to run their own businesses, and then realize the decentralization of the right to open stores. ...
From the above cases, it is not difficult to see that the phenomenon of "decentralization" was everywhere long before it became famous with the help of the last big bull market and Satoshi Nakamoto's White Paper on Bitcoin. Why is this happening?
In this regard, the author mentioned in [Blockchain: The Last Network Celebrity in the Digital World] that for individuals, digital technology and digital economy have brought them two greatest benefits: First, some costs that hindered their actions in the past were concentrated on centralized giants, such as * * * enjoying timeshare in the economy, which can make many people no longer need to carry all kinds of necessities; The second is to spread all kinds of rights and interests to individuals, such as the above-mentioned rights of car owners and passengers, the right of smartphone holders to take photos, the right of netizens to speak, and the right of goods and services providers to open stores. ...
In other words, no matter what kind of decentralization, its essence actually refers to the sinking of various powers from top-level centralized institutions to grassroots individuals. As long as the development of economy and technology continues to benefit every smaller group or individual, this sinking trend will not stop. The "decentralization" advocated by blockchain is actually just one of countless decentralization powers in this wave of science and technology-that is, the right to make money (or the right to record information). In other words, digital currency, a blockchain including Bitcoin, is not the first decentralized product, and it will definitely not be the last decentralized product.
Boundaries of freedom: There is a limit to any decentralization.
However, we should also pay attention to one point: although in theory, the ultimate goal of decentralization is to let power sink into everyone's hands, in reality, because the proper use of any power can not be separated from the good professional quality and moral level of users, from the perspective of vertical section, many of these powers have a bottom line. On the other hand, from a horizontal perspective, it shows a limited degree of decentralization (that is, "polycentricity" as many people often say).
If some power is allowed to continue to sink vertically, that is, the industry continues to be centralized on the positive side, it is likely to lead to some uncontrollable situations, such as the well-known passenger rights (that is, online carpooling), which can only sink to the level of car owners with driver's licenses and good conduct at most. If we break through this bottom line and continue to sink, the probability of all kinds of online car atrocities will soar last year.
By the way, the so-called interlace is like a mountain. Because different industries have different professional requirements for power users, the maximum subsidence degree of different power is often different, and the degree of decentralization that can be tolerated is also different. For example, the negative impact of a single video itself on society is generally not too great. Even if it is not professional enough, it may be understandable to shoot it at will. Therefore, as long as there is no work with black screen style, it is often no problem to let this power sink into everyone's hands.
However, just like the issue of the blockchain coinage right, if it falls into the hands of those who are not objective enough or who are subjectively irresponsible, there will be many fraudulent projects in the digital currency market. Under such circumstances, currency rights can only sink into the hands of individuals or teams that are both professional, marketing and moral (that is, the three elements mentioned by the author in the article [Practical, Positive and Kind: The Road to Blockchain Most Suitable for Ordinary People]). Otherwise, 20 17 and 20 18 are "empty coins in the city".
But unfortunately, many people have no objective and correct understanding of "there is a limit to decentralization". In reality, they especially like to go to extremes. When they first came into contact with the blockchain and digital currency, they thought that the amazing price increase of this new thing came largely from the distributed coinage rights, so whenever there was difficulty in supervision, they would shout the slogan of ideals and freedom with great resistance, as if they were all anarchists; As a result, after the collapse of empty money and counterfeit money and their own interests were damaged, they dropped the banner of decentralization that they had publicized before and cried everywhere why Master Qingtian ignored this lawless wilderness.
The swing between the two poles gives people a sense of confusion. In the final analysis, the reason for this situation is that they do not realize that decentralization, that is, the sinking of various powers, has its limits, especially for the highly professional blockchain coinage rights. Previously, some people imagined that "everyone can coin and print money" can only be an ideal. If we can't realize this objective fact, it is likely that there will be a funny situation that "the front foot loves freedom and the back foot advocates authority".
Nevertheless, even if power cannot sink indefinitely and decentralization cannot be too dispersed, it does not mean that relevant measures are meaningless. Decentralization of coinage rights, represented by Bitcoin and blockchain, may be difficult to sink into the hands of every individual as envisaged by Satoshi Nakamoto, but it makes the word "decentralization" and related freedom ideas take root in the hearts of countless investors and practitioners. Let them have a clearer understanding of the question of "who should hold all kinds of power in the future".
Although many people's accusations against centralized institutions are not fully established at present, such as the accusation of monopoly of mining machine manufacturers; At present, some "forced decentralization" behaviors are not particularly successful, just like the dual CEO structure of Bitland. But in the long run, these immature words and deeds are just a little wave at the beginning of the general trend of social decentralization. Just like once the gate is opened, it can't stop the water flow; When the concept of "decentralization" is deeply rooted in the hearts of the people, affirmative action in all vertical fields is inevitable. The key is only the question of which level power will sink from the original centralized organization.
From this perspective, decentralization has become an irresistible torrent of social development. In the past decade, a large number of social resources have been redistributed, largely because of the sinking of this power. In this case, people, including some blockchain practitioners, began to pursue the victory and targeted another "Chinese prefix"-intermediary, but does "decentralization" mean "disintermediation"? Is the latter an irreversible trend like the former? Related content, the author will introduce in detail in the next series of articles.