Hacker News Reader

Comment by ur-whale | Hacker News Reader

> why not just a central database?

I would have thought this to be obvious, but these chains, while anonymous still have the following attributes:

    - decentralized
    - permissionless
    - does not rely on third-party trust

A central database has none of these attributes.

View on HN

Really? So I can go onto one of these chains and transfer anything to a new address without a third party blessing my transaction?

I was under the impression that nearly the entire thing is based on some form of consensus. Consensus is necessarily by third parties. So if the consensus drives decisions on what gets accepted and what does not, is that not a permission? If there is a single dominant consensus, is that not centralized?

centralized = one party holds all the power. decentralized = many parties, each of which do not hold all the power in isolation, therefore must come to consensus on a case-by-case basis to make decisions. equating decentralized consensus to "oh but that just means they become a centralized single party in aggregate" is an incredibly stupid take. just because I can agree with 4 other parties that one transaction is valid does not that mean that I somehow merge with all 4 of those parties into an entity that has the exact same interests for everything else. can you understand that?

if you can't see the transactions, aren't you trusting a 3rd party that can?

further, none of this is "obvious"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com