On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 16:41:05 +0100 rysiek <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > as "A Miner Problem" shows, even a distributed, p2p solution like > BitCoin suffers from a secondary centralisation flaw. Simply put, > economy of scale lets the biggest player or a cartel of thoise > basically undermine the "decentralized" part and take control over > the network. > > A similar thing has happened with e-mail and GMail. GMail basically > dictates the rules in the e-mail world, simply because they're the > largest and have the most users. Again, economy of scale is to blame. > > So let me pose a question here: is it possible to design a protocol > that does not succumb to economy of scale-based secondary > centralisation? Is it possible to design a protocol that does not > lend itself to economy of scale? > There's always things like TorChat for instant messaging and IPFS for content distribution. There's no concept of any centralisation in either - they're completely peer-to-peer. I'm not sure why you drew a comparison to e-mail - it's inherently centralized, just among several servers.
