A Letter to Jamie Dimon

Sure, you can make decentralized applications more efficient and user friendly by, for example, centralizing users’ cryptographic signing keys (i.e., control of their coins) with a trusted entity. But then we’re mostly back to square one and would be better off using a service that is centralized.

There can be unbounded number of centralized agents for holding user passwords, so it’s not accurate to claim that decentralization can’t be achieved while also offering users a reset password feature.

Who needs censorship resistance so much that they are willing to trade away the speed, cost, scalability, and experience benefits of centralized services?

Actually centralized systems do not scale economically. I explained a bit about that in a post in a Steem discussion thread and several posts in an EOS discussion thread.

While there is not a lot of good data, actual users of decentralized applications seem to fall into two categories:

I will attempt to launch an altcoin to try to popularize decentralization. Political and ideological expression and the decline of trust in top-down control is on a massive upswing trend globally. Cross-pollinating agreeableness and disagreement is one of our engineering/algorithmic goals. For example, Steam offers decentralized choice of curators. And let’s not forget enabling an equity-instead-of-debt-for-users model as well as tokenized gamification …

I link you to some of my analysis/commentary which is applicable to this blog post:


W.r.t. Ethereum (and EOS), I have some analysis and commentary in the following linked thread: