What’s Better, Decentralisation or Progress?

When blockchain products are created, developers are faced with a big dilemma. Do they remain fully decentralised? Or do they give up some of that decentralisation, in order to innovate?

Decentralisation can get in the way of some aspects of innovation, depending on exactly what it is that the project aims to reach in its goals. 

This is kind of like a fight between decentralisation and the progress of blockchain, companies, industries and so on. 

In order to process this battle, developers must ask what sort of decentralisation they are going after. In 2017, Vitalik Buterin, the co-founder of Ethereum posted a blog that discusses the three main types of decentralisation where he states:

“How many physical computers is a system made up of? How many of those computers can it tolerate breaking down at any single time?”

He adds:

“How many individuals or organizations ultimately control the computers that the system is made up of?”

Last but not least:

“Does the interface and data structures that the system presents and maintains look more like a single monolithic object, or an amorphous swarm? One simple heuristic is: if you cut the system in half, including both providers and users, will both halves continue to fully operate as independent units?”

Some aspects of this decentralisation have to be sacrificed in order to make a project more innovative. For example, a project is more decentralised if it requires decisions to be made by numerous entities and people. If there is no central control or no central system that runs the operation, it is a more decentralised project.

Such projects require strong leadership that is able to make decisions to ensure the project moves forward. Therefore, some projects need to be politically centralised (by Buterins definition) in order to ensure growth and in order to ensure the right people are contributing to the project.

For more news on this and other crypto updates, keep it with CryptoDaily!