RE: How high can crypto scale?

Yes it's all a trade off right. So a more efficient system generally equals less nodes and less security. You can have a system like bitcoin with more security but less efficiency. So it's just so difficult to find the goldie locks zone. When i designed bitcoin myk i think we took the more efficient less secure route. According to Vitalik it would seem we can only choose one which is why he doesn't like hive.

So in my theory it was a pretty simple formula. Tokenize on several big chains link to the chains through some gateway and then just let the community choose which version of the token they'd want to use but they'd still all be the same supply etc. So now you get into the issue of centralization and counterparty risk. Is it worth the risk. .are you now even engaging in crypto in the form of how we know it or accept it.

So i can only say this, bitcoin the currency and bitcoin the network when you move the coin the coin has with it the utxo's so it is the code. Like when you move the coin it contains that data. Those transactions etc., So you can't really in a sense have the coin and not have the network.

My point is no matter how it goes he who has the coins has the network right. So in our example no matter how you flip it theoretically we should still end up with some of the best distribution in crypto because we're using a ubi platform and it means it has to be constant distribution no matter what.

In bitcoin and other cryptos i'd still conclude that the network is centralized whether it be by the wealth of the network or the coin to vote ratio.. in the governance etc.. doesn't really matter. I would still come to the conclusion that the security of that network is still going to be somewhat compromised if just by the danger of such levels of centralization in those aspects.

So i guess what i'm getting at is not so much the process of what happens in crypto but what you end up with. So if you end up with 87% of a network owned by 1%. Does it even really matter? That's never going to fulfill or solve many of the issues we're attempting to solve. So are you all more concerned about outcome or the process. I don't know but it would seem we always have to pick one in some regard.

Now with us we want to unify chains together and let the people choose the chains that serves their needs but then one token to rule them all lol. There are other means to address this whether it be some new algo some catchy smart contract or whatever they come up with to scale. parachains.. whatever .. They come up with some new idea as a way to scale every year. So then one network gets either more congested than before or they get less secure than before. This is the connundrum

So again i would ask a question more like in a network would you care more about can it scale and be centralized and not decentralized in the most important ways. Or would you ultimately care more about if you saw a well balanced network owernship wise but in order for that to occur there needed to be some centralization aspects.

However it ends up going it doesn't seem to be doing any good in the decentralization department. if i'm honest even the best models seem centralized to me. You just can't realistically quote stats like what we have in crypto and claim any decentralization. I don't think its proven yet to be a winnable argument that is not full of holes.

Posted Using LeoFinance ^Beta