In the comments on the CRV article, several readers asked the following questions about “decentralization”:

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

Shouldn’t the so-called decentralization also be de-founderized and led by the community?

These issues can be further broken down into two questions:

1 What do I understand by “decentralization”? What do people usually understand by “decentralization”?

2 Would it be better if a project developed according to the public's understanding of "decentralization"?

Today I would like to 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 word "decentralization" was first mentioned in the Bitcoin white paper.

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

So how does Bitcoin’s white paper describe decentralization?

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

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

Specifically for 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 one server. Once the server fails, the entire system will crash.

Since then, in the early discussions of the Bitcoin ecosystem, basically all issues involving "decentralization" were closely discussed around the technical implications: how to make the Bitcoin network nodes large enough so that the risk of Bitcoin network downtime is small enough.

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

After reading this, I hope readers will pay attention to:

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

No.

Indeed, the leaders of Bitcoin have changed one after another, just like the soldiers who come and go in a stable camp. But that happened naturally and not deliberately.

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

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

Ethereum needs to be able to withstand the Third World War, which will still be fought by humans, and the Ethereum network will still be able to work normally.

In addition, he also imagined that if there is a regional conflict, such as a country suddenly banning the operation of Ethereum nodes, causing the Ethereum network to suddenly fall apart or the nodes to be separated and isolated, would the Ethereum network still be able to operate normally or recover quickly in a very short time?

In this scenario, we can also see that the "decentralization" conceived 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.

Is this about “decentralizing” Ethereum’s leadership?

Neither.

The above is what I understand as “decentralization”.

As I understand it, Vitalik’s understanding and conception of “decentralization” is consistent with Satoshi Nakamoto’s: they all refer to technical meanings and have nothing to do with development, operation, and management.

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 turned into "interesting topics" and "dinner table gossip", extending from the simple technical connotation to social relations and interest conflicts such as management, operation and maintenance, and development. Gradually, it sounded like "leaderless", "coreless", "unorganized" and other loose and casual connotations. This mixed connotation has become the "decentralization" understood by more and more people.