Will Curve’s “decentralization” be better? (I)

Source: Daoshuo Blockchain

In the comments on the CRV article, several readers asked the following questions related to "decentralization":

If Curve is taken over by the community, will it be better for the project from the perspective of decentralization?

Shouldn't the so-called decentralization also be founder-oriented and community-led?

If these questions are further subdivided, they can be divided into two questions:

1 What do I understand as "decentralization"? What do the public usually understand as "decentralization"?

2 If a project develops according to the public's understanding of "decentralization", will it be better?

Today, I will share with you my understanding of the first question.

In many articles in 2020 and 2021, I have shared my understanding of "decentralization". This issue is often mentioned and discussed in the circle, and every time I see this topic, I have some different feelings and experiences. Therefore, although it is an "old-fashioned" topic, every time I share this topic, I never feel that it is "old-fashioned". Instead, I feel that it gives me new perspectives and new inspirations on the entire ecosystem, Bitcoin and Ethereum.

In the blockchain ecosystem, if we strictly follow academic standards, the first time "decentralization" was mentioned was in the Bitcoin white paper.

Therefore, the origin of my understanding and thinking about "decentralization" is the Bitcoin white paper.

So how does the Bitcoin white paper describe decentralization?

In general, without relying on a single institution or organization, the Bitcoin network system can complete transactions/transfers.

So everything returns to the origin, and "decentralization" refers to a purely technical meaning: that is, a network system is no longer trapped in the single point of failure problem that the server may encounter in the traditional C/S structure.

Specific to Bitcoin, as long as more than half of the nodes with computing power in the entire network are working normally, the system can operate normally, instead of the traditional C/S structure where many clients request a server. Once the server fails, the entire system crashes.

Since then, in the early discussions of the Bitcoin ecosystem, basically all topics involving "decentralization" are closely discussed around the technical meaning: how to make Bitcoin's network nodes large enough to make the risk of Bitcoin network crashes small enough.

Even later, when Blockstream launched satellites into space to run Bitcoin nodes, its starting point was still closely around technology: if a world war breaks out on Earth and the human Internet completely collapses, we still have artificial satellites in the sky running Bitcoin in the satellite network, preserving the fire for all mankind.

After reading this, I hope readers will pay attention:

In this process, when our predecessors discussed "decentralization" in the early days, did they discuss the need to "remove" the leaders of Bitcoin in "decentralization"? (Please note the words I used above, I used "early" and "strict")

No.

It is true that the leaders of Bitcoin have changed one after another, just like the soldiers of the iron camp are always changing. But that happened naturally rather than deliberately.

Next, Vitalik entered the crypto ecosystem and led the creation of Ethereum.

In the early years, Vitalik's article on the conception of Ethereum 2.0 made the design and goal of Ethereum decentralization clearer:

Ethereum must be able to withstand the third world war of mankind, and it will still be mankind who is fighting the war, and the Ethereum network will still work normally.

In addition, he also imagined that if the human race suddenly broke up or the nodes were separated and isolated due to regional conflicts, such as a country suddenly banned the operation of Ethereum nodes, then the Ethereum network would be able to operate normally or recover quickly in a very short time.

In this scenario, we can also see that the "decentralization" envisioned by Vitalik still refers to the technical meaning, referring to whether the operation of the entire Ethereum network will be harmed and destroyed by external forces.

Does it talk about "decentralizing" the leader of Ethereum?

No.

The above is what I understand as "decentralization".

According to my understanding, Vitalik's understanding and conception of "decentralization" is consistent with Satoshi Nakamoto: all refer to the technical meaning, and do not involve development, operation and management at all.

Why did I deliberately emphasize "early" and "strict" in the previous text?

Because later, with the addition of more and more voices and the mixing of more and more opinions, the discussion of "decentralization" gradually became a "fun topic" and "dinner table gossip", extending from the simple technical connotation to social relations and interest disputes such as management, operation and maintenance, and development, and gradually sounded like "leaderless", "coreless", "unorganized" and other loose and casual meanings - and this mixed connotation has become the "decentralization" understood by more and more people.