Hinzu kommt die Frage nach dem Kontext.
So kannst du auch einfach sagen, dass es Kartoffel Unterschiede gibt zu ETH. Das ist ja, was ich ursprünglich meinte mit Metrik. Es gibt keine Art Messband (Messlatte, Maßeinheit), die zureichend zufrieden den Grad der Dezentralität messen und vergleichen kann.
Das Pentagon hat einen „Wie dezentral sind Blockchains wirklich?“-Bericht rausgebracht, der zwar kritisch hinterfragt werden muss, aber sie haben den Begriff Dezentralität schon mal auf verschiedene Dimensionen betrachtet. Ich denke, dass das auch nicht ohne diese differenzierte Betrachtung geht.
Die genannten (und vermutlich nicht vollständig) Dimensionen sind (S. 3f):
● Authoritative centrality: What is the minimum number of entities necessary to
disrupt the system? This number is called the Nakamoto coefficient, and the closer
this value is to one, the more centralized the system. This is also often referred to as
“Governance Centrality”.
● Consensus centrality: Similar to authoritative centrality, to what extent is the
source of consensus (e.g., proof-of-work [PoW]) centralized? Does a single entity (like
a mining pool) control an undue amount of the network’s hashing power?
● Motivational centrality: How are participants disincentivized from acting
maliciously (e.g., posting malformed or incorrect data)? To what extent are these incentives centrally controlled? How, if at all, can the rights of a malicious participant
be revoked?
● Topological centrality: How resistant is the consensus network to disruption? Is
there a subset of nodes that form a vital bridge in the network, without which the
network would become bifurcated?
● Network centrality: Are the nodes sufficiently geographically dispersed such that
they are uniformly distributed across the internet? What would happen if a
malicious internet service provider (ISP) or nation-state decided to block or filter all
DLT traffic?
● Software centrality: To what extent is the safety of the DLT dependent on the
security of the software on which it runs? Any bug in the software (either
inadvertent or intentional) could invalidate the invariants of the DLT, e.g., breaking
immutability. If there is ambiguity in the DLT’s specification, two independently
developed software clients might disagree, causing a fork in the blockchain. An
upstream vulnerability in a dependency shared by the two clients can similarly affect
their operation.