Exactly, but there is a cost to find out if "blockchain decentralization" is worth the cost.
Right now, proving ownership through decentralization costs more than one single entity doing it. But if decentralization systems proliferate, then we can see if the extra cost of decentralization is worth it.
In industries where this extra cost is not worth it, decentralization probably won't exist. In industries where one single authority has too much say and power, users will be willing to pay the cost of decentralization. Payments, in my opinion, is the best example since Mastercard and Visa have such a stronghold on how you can make or take payments online. In an industry like that, users will pay a premium.
I don't think blockchains meaningfully decentralize anything, the state still has a monopoly on force and anything they enable can be achieved in other ways and ultimately is bounded by the same state. The important bit is the interface between society and blockchains, the actual properties of the blockchain tech are kinda irrelevant.
Do you honestly think that Visa and Mastercard wanna prevent people from using their services to buy porn for example? They don't give a shit, they want money, the state, the people with the monopoly on force are the ones who create the circumstances that put that pressure on Visa and whoever else. If bitcoin mattered enough it would face the same fate (and I think it's clear that's the way it's headed). Crypto isn't somehow immune to the fact that we live in a society.
Mainly blockchain tech just provides a vehicle to obfuscate financial machinations. Much of the value of blockchain tech comes from it's viability as a financial tool that's abreast of regulations to prevent abuse. Broadly it's a zero or negative sum game, the value comes from other people losing value. We shouldn't allow systems like that.
>> Do you honestly think that Visa and Mastercard wanna prevent people from using their services to buy porn for example? They don't give a shit, they want money, the state, the people with the monopoly on force are the ones who create the circumstances that put that pressure on Visa and whoever else.
If the government doesn't want these industries, why not just ban them? Why make businesses jump through hoops to accept payments and pay higher fees? And don't forget, if your company is big enough, Mastercard and Visa will work with you. Small business? Yeah, they don't. Who decided to make Mastercard and Visa gatekeepers and not our actual laws?
>> If bitcoin mattered enough it would face the same fate (and I think it's clear that's the way it's headed). Crypto isn't somehow immune to the fact that we live in a society.
What fate is that? Using Bitcoin and other crypto to pay for legitimate and legal items would have the government come down in storm? Can I not use cash for items deemed high-risk by Visa and MC?
>> Broadly it's a zero or negative sum game, the value comes from other people losing value. We shouldn't allow systems like that.
It might be a zero-sum game, but in the payments example, the buyer and seller win and the centralized authority loses.
I mean, theoretically a people could overthrow its government at any moment simply by virtue of outnumbering it. Even if the military technically outguns a militia consisting of every single citizen, they are usually fairly hesitant when ordered to shoot to kill their own people[0].
The dream of crypto libertarians isn't to eliminate the monopoly of violence but to get into the position of controlling it, or at least be exempt from it. A monopoly of violence doesn't work because it's a literal monopoly, it works because it is recognized and under capitalism the recognition is largely based on money.
Crypto currencies can be regulated, sure, but the goal of web3 isn't simply to have thousands of coins to speculatively invest in. The long goal of web3 is to move all public records (and really all documents controlling ordinary people's lives) on-chain so that "smart contracts" on the chain can supersede actual law by automated enforcement. Having extreme wealth (and thus controlling a significant share of the consent) can still exempt you from the negative effects but if smart contracts can shape reality because all software obeys them, you can effectively write your own laws.
[0]: A lot of US police training involves drawing explicit conceptual distinctions between LEOs (sheep dogs), civilians (sheep) and criminals (wolves), with civilians being potential criminals or "wolves in sheep's clothing" and being prone to "mistaking sheep dogs for wolves" because they're a bit dim. Military training on the other hand usually reserves this kind of in-group/out-group dehumanization for people from different countries (with drone strikes infamously counting unidentified casualties as presumed enemy combatants if they're "of fighting age").
