Towards Centralized Blockchains

paul arssov
May 31, 2019 · 4 min read

by Paul Arssov (disclosure: I am developing an automated cryptocurrency trading system at —


This article has been written from my point of view as a distributed app (Dapp) developer. It also shows the points of view of the blockchain developer and the point of view of the coin/wallet holder.

In general there are 2 groups of blockchains — the large group of decentralized by design blockchains (Bitcoin, Ethereum…) and the small group of centralized by design blockchains (Ripple,Tether…).

The article is pointing to the tendency of centralizing of the large group of decentralized by design blockchains (Bitcoin, Ethereum…) — as in having fewer copies of a specific blockchain.

Crypto node

2.From early day to present time

In the early days of crypto revolution a crypto enthusiast would start the daemon (a program running in the background) of a Bitcoin (bitcoind) or Ethereum (geth) in the beginning of the day on their desktop/notebook. The daemon would quickly download the blocks generated since the previous day and then synchronize with the network and allow use of the wallet and/or of a program using the RPC API of the blockchain.

From the point of view of a blockchain developer, by initial design every user of a private wallet of a crypto-currency has to download the whole blockchain and store it on local disk. In essence, this means everybody distrusts everybody and has to download, verify and have a copy of the blockchain for themselves.

As the sizes of major and popular blockchains did grow up, the blockchain developers did provide a mode in the daemon to store only a fraction of the blockchain (‘pruned’ mode — Bitcoin, ‘fast sync’ mode - Ehereum..), but the user still has to download the whole blockchain.

Even with the ‘fast’/’pruned’ option the amount stored on the local disk is 10s of GBs. The complete blockchain size is more than 1TB/ETH, 250GB/BTC and growing.

The situation places heavy burden on and discourages crypto-currency users who want to have their own local private wallets and/or to run a node.

From the point of view of an ordinary holder of crypto assets it is not convenient to keep downloading and storing multiple blockchains.

In order to have a private wallet for crypto assets most users already migrated to a small group of commercial wallet providers — who have and keep maintaining a single copy of a blockchain serving all of their users. While a crypto-exchange does run their trading software, most likely they use the wallet service of the same small group of commercial wallet providers.

In essence almost all crypto asset holders have their assets accessible through only few blockchain copies.

Currently a Dapp developer, like me, has to run non-stop a cloud cpu instance with the daemon of a specific blockchain in order to place calls to smart contracts and/or make transfers.

From the point of view of a Dapp developer this may be ok for a single blockchain but it is definitely not ok if the Dapp developer wants to have access to multiple different crypto blockchains.

To somewhat relieve the situation initiatives like ‘web3.js’ allow Dapp developers on Ethereum blockchain to access the chain and place calls. Most of such ‘web3.js’ developers do not concern themselves with the fact that there is an organization / a web site which has the resources to run the daemon and provide the access to Ethereum blockchain for ‘web3.js’ callers.

In essence, such Dapp calls are also placed through very few copies of the Ethereum blockchain.

3.From now on, towards the future

The tendency for centralization of decentralized by design blockchains, as shown above for the groups of crypto assets holders and Dapp developers will continue.

It is maybe a time to call blockchain developers and propose creating and maintaining of a limited number of trusted identical copies of the blockchain, or even a single copy, and have a daemon which can access already up to date and synchronized public copy of their blockchain.

What would be the benefits of centralizing , in — pro-con:

con — centralizing of the blockchain — limit the number of copies of the blockchain; place trust in a small number of blockchain copies;

pro — potential of de-centralizing of wallets; moving away from commercial wallets; mass adoption of light private wallets from ordinary users;

pro — spare the users of constant downloading and storing of the blockchain; slow down global warming, use less electricity and storage;

pro — allow potentially quick redesign, adding features and update of the whole blockchain;

Sign up for Get Better Tech Emails via


how hackers start their afternoons. the real shit is on Take a look.

By signing up, you will create a Medium account if you don’t already have one. Review our Privacy Policy for more information about our privacy practices.

Check your inbox
Medium sent you an email at to complete your subscription.

Elijah McClain, George Floyd, Eric Garner, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Michael Brown, Oscar Grant, Atatiana Jefferson, Tamir Rice, Bettie Jones, Botham Jean

paul arssov

Written by

Creating the decentralized web —

Elijah McClain, George Floyd, Eric Garner, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Michael Brown, Oscar Grant, Atatiana Jefferson, Tamir Rice, Bettie Jones, Botham Jean

Medium is an open platform where 170 million readers come to find insightful and dynamic thinking. Here, expert and undiscovered voices alike dive into the heart of any topic and bring new ideas to the surface. Learn more

Follow the writers, publications, and topics that matter to you, and you’ll see them on your homepage and in your inbox. Explore

If you have a story to tell, knowledge to share, or a perspective to offer — welcome home. It’s easy and free to post your thinking on any topic. Write on Medium

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store