pull down to refresh

300 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 15 Aug \ on: Federated VS Decentralized (Don't Call it Decentralized) Deus Lo Vult Edition bitcoin
However, still the ability to become self sovereign and unruggable and stay in the consensus that you desire is still there.
Nostr is also not considered decentralized. It isn't peer to peer. It relies on server client architecture, but you can switch between websites at will and your ID is more so connected to your keys than any given server.
By these two sentences, would it be fair to say two properties of a decentralized systems are capacity for unruggable use, and at least where the system isn't stateless, something approaching consensus?
write
preview
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @nerd2ninja OP 15 Aug
where the system isn't stateless, something approaching consensus?
Where a system isn't stateless if I pack that back up it would look like "Where a system is stateful" right? Yeah a stateful system needs a consensus that can break apart. So if there is a disagreement, the people who disagree can together continue the state where they think it should be. Because if it isn't like that and you can't continue state from a point where you disagree then that means that the minority is subject to the majority which is democracy which is not self sovereignty.
Social constructs are not decided by democratic vote right? so. I really hold onto social construct dynamics a lot with this lol.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 15 Aug
I think that’s fair. I mean I agree with you. My mind wants a checklist is all.
  • consensus at the level you require (if it’s stateful)
  • your ability to participate (at the level of consensus you require) can’t be trivially taken from you
reply