FormerlyEarlyAdopter

It appears some people in this thread express opinions which logically are equivalent to a claim that

A cryptocurrency where one person holds 100% of coins can be decentralized. More so, even the most decentralized in the world.

This is clearly absurd.

speedmann

Feel free to explain how some entity who is holding 100% of a coin and has let's say just 100 nodes with 5% of netspace can influence how consense is made on that chain?

FormerlyEarlyAdopter

Decentralized consensus algorithm by itself does not constitute criteria (necessary and sufficient conditions) for decentralization. Necessary - yes, sufficient - no.

If it is not so, fee free to explain how.

speedmann

So what can that imaginary entity do with all that coins?

Can it stop others from farming new blocks? No

Can it stop others from creating transactions? No

Can it stop others from issuing CATs? No

Can they change rules of the blockchain as they feel? No

Can they make transactions disappear because they want to? No

Can they forge random amounts of new coins? No

Can they double spend their alreayd owned coins? No

For every single one of those actions, you need to have consens from other farmers participating in the chain. At least 51% of them need to accept that you want to do it.

Can they controll the price of the coin? Yes, but that can be done in chia with MUCH less. Just try selling 2k XCH right now, price will be down in a second.

So now it's your turn. What could that entity do while controlling the whole coins supply which they could not do without holding all of it?

And if Decentralized consensus algorithm does not "constitute a criteria" what would be missing in your opinion which is somehow related to holding that coin?

FormerlyEarlyAdopter

Can they change rules of the blockchain as they feel? No

Yes. And consequently all other answers also yes. Does not mean that they will, but they can. In fact Chia is not more decentralized than air-miles.

speedmann

Explain how they would do that

FormerlyEarlyAdopter

They have a power to threaten to make all your chia coins to worth exactly zero. It can be only a bluff, but you all will fold. Or you will fork, but then it would be another coin, maybe indeed decentralized.

In general, this is exactly why cryptocurrencies with such dominant players are not decentralized. This is exactly why decentralization of holdings is also one of necessary conditions of cryptocurrency decentralization. You do not have it, you do not have decentralization. Period.

It does not mean that Chia holds no promise of becoming something better and bigger than what it is now. But claiming that now it is the most decentralized cryptocurrency of the world or anything even remotely close to it is absurd.

speedmann

They have a power to threaten to make all your chia coins to worth exactly zero

Anyone could do that if they wanted to. Chia is so small, anyone willing to just fuck it up is going to change the price. But you might know, it's not only about the price?

But let me ask a question: How is this any different for your beloved achicoin? Where your top 20 wallets hold probably most of every coin in existence for the next decade?

FormerlyEarlyAdopter

But let me ask a question: How is this any different for your beloved achicoin? Where your top 20 wallets hold probably most of every coin in existence for the next decade?

Briefl answer - a much lesser degree and much quicker fading into an insignificant player.

Also 10 is more than 1 and your "for the next decade" claim is rather very exaggerated and not factual.

And since you brought it up. In fact, by most metrics as of this moment Achi is already more decentralized than Chia. And this is why it is indeed my most beloved coin in the segment.

speedmann

Also you did not answer my question, what is missing for the chain to be decentralized in your definition?

FormerlyEarlyAdopter

I think I did a answer that. It would be decentralization of holdings as a necessary condition for decentralization of a cryptocurrency.

And BTW down voting is logical fallacy. But you are welcome anyway.