As long as the users can leave at any time and move to either a self sovereign version or a competitor with minimal switching cost.
pull down to refresh
pull down to refresh
As long as the users can leave at any time and move to either a self sovereign version or a competitor with minimal switching cost.
centralized ≠ closed
decentralized ≠ open
the defining property is openness (an option to be self sovereign at any time)
Your statement contradicts itself.
You're saying one does not have to participate in decentralized systems if one can swittch to decentralized systems anytime. Is that what you are saying? If everyone did that then decentralization would be dead basically. And if decentralized systems did not exist then one would have no choice but be at the whims of a few powerful centralized players.
really just saying that openness matters most and in the setting of lightning where there are lots of centralized services and most use a centralized exchange or wallet the network is still open where everyone can permissionlessly leave to their own node if they wish.
the problem with centralization is that there is often lock in.
I disagree, particularly because of network effects. So even if you have a centralized system kicking people off like paypal it takes a long time for a competitor if ever to get as big and useful for the people who getting kicked off.
this discussion is great, which is why i posted this as an unpopular opinion.
paypal is centralized and closed (cannot run your own paypal instance)
lightning is centralizing but open
the difference of open vs closed allows centralizing systems to have the ability to decentralize.