{"id":8691,"date":"2020-04-21T22:19:17","date_gmt":"2020-04-21T19:19:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/forklog.media\/?p=8691"},"modified":"2020-04-22T21:25:00","modified_gmt":"2020-04-22T18:25:00","slug":"what-holds-real-decentralization-back","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/forklog.com\/en\/what-holds-real-decentralization-back\/","title":{"rendered":"What Holds Real Decentralization Back"},"content":{"rendered":"

Vladimir Popov<\/a>, the founder of Synergis who had co-authored a book<\/a> about Web 3.0, highlighted the principal problems of DPoS and LPoS algorithms, explained flaws in their architecture, and hypothesized about decentralized networks of the future. This is an adaptation of the original Russian-language article<\/a> Vladimir wrote exclusively for ForkLog.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Concentration of Wealth<\/h2>\n

Many people still think that blockchain is about trust, although it was actually created with the goal of building a trustless environment in mind.<\/p>\n

The latest version of the Cardano client does<\/a> certain things only if there are enough honest participants. What if there isn\u2019t? What if somebody wants to take over the system, no matter how expensive it is?<\/p>\n

Things like this have happened even within blockchain communities: EOS whales were attacking<\/a> Ethereum, Justin Sun tried<\/a> to take over Steem through Steemit, and so on.<\/p>\n

In my opinion, it can lead to grim consequences given the exponential growth. Currently, the cryptocurrency market is small, so it\u2019s about time to polish security at the architecture level<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"The<\/a><\/p>\n

The share of assets owned by the top 10 addresses in Bitcoin and Cardano<\/i><\/p>\n

Here is Cardano\u2019s 33.05%<\/a> against Bitcoin\u2019s 5.61%.<\/p>\n

Protection from the 51% attack has to do with the top 10, 20, 30, or so addresses. This is particularly prominent in EOS<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Of course, metrics like total supply, levels of network decentralization or distribution across nodes, number of users, etc. should be taken into account. But it doesn\u2019t change the nature of the problem.<\/p>\n

Another even more complicated fundamental question is the importance of considering different aspects of decentralization when building decentralized social networks.<\/p>\n

Hard and Soft<\/h2>\n

If a cryptocurrency isn\u2019t prone to the 51% attack, it is centralized. The same goes for Sybil attacks<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

This is a thought-provoking observation. \ud83e\udd14<\/p>\n

By definition, a decentralized cryptocurrency must be susceptible to 51% attacks whether by hashrate, stake, and\/or other permissionlessly-acquirable resources.<\/p>\n

If a crypto can't be 51% attacked, it is permissioned and centralized. https:\/\/t.co\/LRCVj5F0O1<\/a><\/p>\n

— Charlie Lee \u24c2\ufe0f\ud83d\udd78\ufe0f (@SatoshiLite) January 8, 2019<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n