Web3: Decentralization and Consensus
As we saw in the previous article we are already living in an era of decentralization. It’s worth reflecting on why we specifically associate blockchain with decentralization in a world where many things are more decentralized than we first may think.
Decentralization: How the Internet Originally Began
Many people misunderstand that decentralization is just an ideology advocated by a few people in crypto and Web3. However, the internet has always been a decentralized technology from its inception.
It started with the idea that anyone can connect computers and share documents between each other, in a peer-to-peer fashion. The original decentralized nature of the internet shifted toward centralization with the emergence of large profit-focused corporations, and now it’s moving back towards decentralization with the rise of Web3. In other words, the spirit of the internet has always been swaying somewhere between centralization and decentralization. The current trends of decentralization and Web3 are not about ‘breaking the centralized world’, but rather finding a balance between them. We often switch directions based on efficiency — towards centralization or decentralization — whichever is more efficient for whichever task or purpose is on hand at the time.
One important thing we must not overlook is that ‘decentralization’ always requires comparison. For instance, the era of democracy can be considered more decentralized when compared to the era of monarchy. Similarly, an era where everyone has the right to vote is more decentralized than an era where only men could vote.
The Core of Bitcoin Lies in ‘Logical Centralization’
When discussing decentralized and centralized systems we must observe the Political, Architectural and Logical layers. First, we look to the Architectural level where computers are connected. Then, the Political level, which includes managing nodes. Whether the third layer — the Logical layer — aims for decentralization or centralization is based on the information in the first two layers.
Take Bitcoin, for example. The problem Bitcoin aimed to solve, the double-spending issue, was about maintaining a consistent single ledger. In other words, Bitcoin represented a centralized state with a decentralized architecture. The lower two layers were decentralized, but the ultimate goal was centralization. So, we can answer the question ‘Is Bitcoin a decentralized technology?’ like this: “Bitcoin is Architecturally and Politically decentralized, but Logically centralized. In other words, Bitcoin is a technology created for ‘logical centralization’.”
This notion arose in the context of Ethereum not being a completely Architecturally decentralized technology. Ethereum’s creator, Vitalik Buterin, conveyed this message to the public during the transition from a Proof of Work (PoW) to a Proof of Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism. He suggested that even something like PoS, which may appear more ‘centralized’, can still be Politically Decentralized.
The Purpose of Decentralization Lies in Diversity and Stability
Centralization is well focused for achieving goals but not necessarily for survival. If we take politics as an example; since the goal of a nation is not just to win wars but to survive and thrive, they seek to strengthen the power of citizens, the sovereign, by electing a diverse set of leaders (and not just one).
The reason why Bitcoin and other Web3 technologies pursue decentralization, a concept and framework which isn’t perfect but carries more advantages than what’s come before, can be seen through the example of aviation. The primary goal of an airplane is to safely transport passengers to their destination. To achieve this, airplanes use various parts and devices from different manufacturers and sources, which ultimately come from different nations. This is to distribute the risk (Architectural Decentralization), rather than exclusively using products from a specific manufacturer, hence decentralizing the system.
FLP Impossibility
FLP Impossibility is a theory that explains a fundamental principle of our world; ‘If even one person is absent in the consensus process, then consensus is impossible.’ It essentially states ‘Consensus cannot be achieved in an Asynchronous state.’ The term Asynchronous itself implies uncertainty, without the guarantee of return, and everything in our world seems to hold a level of uncertainty at its core.
Consensus can only be achieved in a Synchronous state. For Bitcoin’s ‘Logical Centralization’, consensus is necessary, but in an Asynchronous P2P network consensus is theoretically impossible. Bitcoin solved this problem through ‘probability’. Thus, according to this theory, Bitcoin has been a chain that has ‘probabilistically’ reached consensus for 15 years. It’s not a chain where consensus has been completely achieved but one that has acknowledged this fact.
In an Asynchronous decentralized network, Bitcoin still solves this problem by introducing probability (of a value being correct) in its consensus (Nakamoto Consensus). From this we can summarize that ‘no such thing as absolute consensus exists, and only probabilistic consensus is possible.’
How Has the User Experience of Web3 Changed?
Decentralization and centralization are not binary concepts. If a society is moving towards decentralization it means that it has shifted relatively more towards decentralization than before, presumably because it is a more efficient state. From this end we’ll examine Web3 from the user’s perspective.
We are moving from an era where each website requires a separate login (Centralized) to a federated approach where a single Google-like platform ID allows login/access to many websites and services. Now we are heading towards an era where users can login with their personal wallets instead of separate login credentials held on each individual centralized service, representing a shift towards strengthening individual sovereignty.
Web3 brings with it the era of private keys, becoming an age where the individual themselves is the ‘proof’. It’s a time where users can enjoy a seamless experience, proving their identities simply by interacting across various platforms. This marks a paradigm shift in society. It’s like being able to conveniently enter and exit many countries around the world unencumbered with just one passport.
With the shift back to decentralization, the ‘Headless Brand’ is a unique branding phenomenon seen in Web3. Exemplified by Bitcoin, the concept embodies decentralization, with the notion of a body or system which is not managed centrally (not controlled by a ‘head’) but spreads and becomes a brand on its own. Bitcoin, born in 2009, has entrenched itself in the Web3 era over the last 15 years, becoming imprinted in users’ minds through various needs. Like Bitcoin, a Headless Brand roots itself firmly in the era of Web3 and continues to maintain its presence.
AI Network is a decentralized AI development ecosystem based on blockchain technology. Within its ecosystem, resource providers can earn AIN tokens for their GPUs, developers can gain access to GPUs for open source AI programs, and creators can transform their AI creations into AINFTs. The ultimate goal of AI Network is to bring AI to Web3, where everyone can easily develop and utilize artificial intelligence.
If you want to know more about us,
- Homepage: https://www.ainetwork.ai/
- AI Network DAO Discord: https://discord.com/invite/aindao/
- AI Network YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@ainetwork_ai/
- AI Network Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ainetworkofficial
- AI Network Twitter: https://twitter.com/ainetwork_ai
