wondering if we should be talking less about "decentralization" and more about "resilience"

A doodler and computerer. I like permissive/permissionless open source, smart contracts, p2p systems, room-scale VR, and NixOS.

shazow.net

Currently: WhatsABI

I agree. Decentralization has no value by itself and shouldn't be the goal. The goal is resilience (to something), and in many cases, decentralization is a way to achieve it.

cypherpunk wannabe, engineer working on @frames /open-frames /opencast
https://stephancill.co.za create stories at https://stories.steer.fun

I'm not sure it's even that, I think the issue is that decentralization is a continuum relative to some frame of reference. It is not binary or absolute. But English semantics misleadingly imply that it is.

Resilience semantics imply "resilience against... what?" This is valuable framing for conversation.

I'm not sure "decentralization" is itself semantically meaningful in absolute terms: https://warpcast.com/shazow.eth/0x4eab2071

How can we talk about decentralization being a way to achieve something when it's subjective to a frame of reference? Shouldn't we be talking about that frame instead?

Dad, geek, conversation liquidity provider. vrypan.net (home), /weatherxm (work), @l--o--l (fun). Also https://paragraph.xyz/@purplesubmarine