Vitalik的“去中心化堆栈”需要严格的全球共识吗？
作者：polynya 来源：mirror 翻译：善欧巴，比特币买卖交易网
我将“去中心化堆栈”放在引号中，因为Vitalik 的许多建议实际上比“传统堆栈”更加中心化。最令人震惊的例子是“DAO”。如今，几乎所有 DAO 都是反乌托邦的财阀，少数巨鲸和风险投资人控制着一切。即使是那些试图挣脱束缚的组织，也与传统的组织结构（尤其是合作社）相去甚远，传统的组织结构比任何 DAO 都更加去中心化和民主。即使是最大的上市公司也要对民主选举的监管机构负责，例如苹果被迫采用 USB-C 标准，允许侧载应用程序、替代应用程序商店等。但我离题了……
好吧，我不想发表这篇文章来批评 Vitalik 的List，但我以即兴风格撰写这些博客文章，因此需要注意的是，“银行系统”是“去中心化堆栈”提供的更大的超集。Vitalik 指出，我们仍然需要银行提供贷款，但这不仅仅是贷款，它实际上是任何主观的东西——货币政策的主观货币、诈骗的争议解决等。实际上，“银行系统”和“ETH、稳定币”之间存在重叠。 、用于支付的 L2、DEX 等”，但它们也提供不同的服务，因此这两个堆栈不具有可比性，您将需要两者。是的，您可以在加密内容之上添加传统堆栈，但它只是传统堆栈的一部分。最后，
话虽如此，ETH和原生加密资产绝对、100%需要严格的全球共识！事实上，这是主要用例，占加密货币价值的 90% 以上。
其他一些用例 - 这取决于情况。稳定币不一定需要严格的全球共识，但严格的全球共识使其能够领先于监管并提前上市。但最终，美国 CBDC 没有理由不能提供与 USDT 或 USDC 完全相同的服务，而是以更加去中心化和高效的方式，消除中间商（即 Tether、以太坊、L2s 等）。我还认为使用 ZKP CBDC 可以是公平和民主的 - 但当然，CBDC 的糟糕实施也可能是反乌托邦的。
现在，即使在那个世界里，也会有对基于区块链的稳定币的需求，所以是的 - 它确实需要严格的全球共识，但也许更多的是作为一个长期的利基市场。
DEX——是的，它们确实需要严格的全球共识，但它也是一个利基市场。绝大多数交易发生在中央交易所，并且将持续下去，尤其是现在可用的现货 ETF 等受监管产品。我会将 DeFi 添加到这个阵营中，是的 - DeFi 因其独特的属性绝对需要严格的全球共识。显然，这也是一个利基市场。
我已经反对 DAO。我认为绝大多数 DAO 并不真正需要严格的全球共识。他们确实需要它来使他们的代币可以在全球范围内访问，但仅此而已。或者，如果 DAO 是加密协议，那么提案和投票就会导致智能合约的执行。但绝大多数 DAO 所做的绝大多数事情——它们不需要严格的全球共识。
是的，ENS确实需要严格的全球共识！您需要一个所有人都同意的全球注册表。与此同时，我不知道这是否是结局，有可能会出现超出公共区块链所能做到的新身份解决方案。
我将所有这些事情集中在一起，因为总的来说，其中大多数不需要严格的全球共识，并且可以通过点对点来实现。
一个例外是使用以太坊登录。虽然它不需要写入严格的全球共识，但它可能需要读取严格的全球共识。此外，其中一些可能需要在一两个方面达成严格的全球共识，即使它们大多没有完成。
总而言之，我们不断得出相同的结论，并不断扩大我们的证据基础——严格的全球共识可以实现客观的金钱和客观的身份。需要这两件事的应用程序可以受益于公共区块链严格的全球共识属性。对于几乎所有其他事情（除了利基用例） - 只需使用点对点或其他传统方法即可。
I put the decentralized stack in quotation marks because many suggestions are actually more centralized than the traditional stack. The most shocking example is that almost all of them are dystopian chaebols, and a few giant whales and venture capitalists control everything. Even those organizations that try to break free are far from the traditional organizational structure, especially cooperatives. The traditional organizational structure is more decentralized and democratic than any other, even the largest listed company. The company is also responsible for the democratically elected regulators, for example, Apple is forced to adopt standards to allow side-loading applications to replace app stores, but I digress. Well, I don't want to publish this article to criticize it, but I write these blog posts in an impromptu style, so it should be noted that the banking system is a larger superset provided by the decentralized stack, pointing out that we still need banks to provide loans, but this is not just a loan, but it is actually a dispute over subjective currency fraud in monetary policy. In fact, there is overlap between the banking system and the stable currency for payment, but they also provide different services, so the two stacks are not comparable. You will need both. Yes, you can add the traditional stack on top of the encrypted content, but it is only a part of the traditional stack. However, the last words and the original encrypted assets absolutely need strict global consensus. In fact, this is the main use case, which accounts for the value of the encrypted currency. It depends on the situation. The stable currency does not necessarily need to be strict. Ge's global consensus, but strict global consensus, enables it to be ahead of the supervision and go public in advance, but in the end, there is no reason why the United States can't provide the same or exactly the same services, but eliminate the middleman, Ethereum, in a more decentralized and efficient way. I still think that the use can be fair and democratic, but of course, the poor implementation may also be dystopian. Now even in that world, there will be a demand for stable coins based on blockchain, so yes, it really needs strict global consensus, but it also Perhaps more as a long-term niche market, yes, they do need a strict global consensus, but it is also a niche market. Most transactions take place in the central exchange and will continue, especially the regulated products such as the spot available now. I will add them to this camp. Yes, because of its unique attributes, it absolutely needs a strict global consensus. Obviously, this is also a niche market. I have opposed it. I think the vast majority do not really need a strict global consensus. They do. It comes to make their tokens accessible around the world, but that's all, or if it's an encryption protocol, the proposal and voting will lead to the implementation of smart contracts, but most of the things they do don't need strict global consensus, yes, they do. You need a global registry that everyone agrees on, and at the same time, I don't know if this is the end. There may be new identity solutions beyond the public blockchain. I will do all of these. Things come together because in general, most of them don't need a strict global consensus and can be achieved through peer-to-peer. One exception is to use Ethereum to log in. Although it doesn't need to write a strict global consensus, it may need to read a strict global consensus. In addition, some of them may need to reach a strict global consensus in one or two aspects, even though most of them are not completed. In short, we continue to reach the same conclusion and expand our evidence-based strict global consensus. Applications that can achieve objective money and objective identity need these two things can benefit from the strict global consensus attribute of public blockchain, and only need to use peer-to-peer or other traditional methods for almost everything except niche use cases. 比特币今日价格行情网_okx交易所app_永续合约_比特币怎么买卖交易_虚拟币交易所平台
注册有任何问题请添加 微信：MVIP619 拉你进入群
打开微信扫一扫
添加客服
进入交流群
1.本站遵循行业规范，任何转载的稿件都会明确标注作者和来源；2.本站的原创文章，请转载时务必注明文章作者和来源，不尊重原创的行为我们将追究责任；3.作者投稿可能会经我们编辑修改或补充。
