Red de Bibliotecas Virtuales de Ciencias Sociales en
América Latina y el Caribe

logo CLACSO

  1. Repositorio institucional de CLACSO
  2. Colección de los Centros Asociados
  3. España
  4. Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociología - UCM - Cosecha
Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar este ítem: https://biblioteca-repositorio.clacso.edu.ar/handle/CLACSO/181094
Registro completo de metadatos
Campo DC Valor Lengua/Idioma
dc.creatorTozzi, Christopher-
dc.date2019-10-09-
dc.date.accessioned2023-03-15T20:34:15Z-
dc.date.available2023-03-15T20:34:15Z-
dc.identifierhttps://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/TEKN/article/view/64523-
dc.identifier10.5209/tekn.64523-
dc.identifier.urihttps://biblioteca-repositorio.clacso.edu.ar/handle/CLACSO/181094-
dc.descriptionCreating fair, transparent and genuinely democratic modes of decentralized decision-making has been a key concern for many developers and users of blockchains. This article evaluates several popular methods of maintaining consensus and achieving decentralized decision-making on blockchain networks in order to assess the extent to which blockchains challenge the norms of the liberal-democratic order. In particular, it compares and contrasts Proof-of-Work, Proof-of-Stake and Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance consensus mechanisms, assessing not just how they operate in a technical sense but also (and most important) the political, economic and social dimensions of these different blockchain governance strategies. This comparison highlights efforts by blockchain communities to redefine or push the bounds of democracy, as well as the challenges they have faced in their efforts to create digital democracies that do not reproduce the same economic and social inequalities present in traditional democratic systems.en-US
dc.descriptionLa creación de modelos justos, transparentes y genuinamente democráticos de toma de decisiones descentralizadas ha sido una preocupación clave para muchos desarrolladores y usuarios de blockchain. Este artículo evalúa varios métodos populares para mantener el consenso y lograr una toma de decisiones descentralizada en las redes blockchain para evaluar en qué medida las blockchains desafían las normas del orden liberal-democrático. En particular, compara y contrasta los mecanismos de consenso de Prueba de trabajo, Prueba de estaca y Tolerancia práctica a la falla bizantina, evaluando no solo cómo operan en un sentido técnico sino también (y lo más importante) cómo operan las dimensiones políticas, económicas y sociales de estas diferentes estrategias de gobierno de blockchain. Esta comparación destaca los esfuerzos de las comunidades blockchain para redefinir o empujar los límites de la democracia, así como los desafíos que han enfrentado en sus esfuerzos por crear democracias digitales que no reproduzcan las mismas desigualdades económicas y sociales presentes en los sistemas democráticos tradicionales.es-ES
dc.descriptionA criação de modelos justos, transparentes e genuinamente democráticos de tomadas de decisão descentralizadas tem sido uma preocupação para muitos desenvolvedores e usuários de blockchains. Este artigo avalia diversos métodos populares para manter consenso e alcançar uma tomada de decisão descentralizada nas redes de blockchain para assessar a medida a qual o blockchain desafia as normas da ordem liberal-democrática. Em particular, compara e contrasta os mecanismos de consenso da prova de trabalho, prova de participação e Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance, avaliando não somente como eles operam num sentido técnico mas também (e mais importante) as dimensões políticas, econômicas e sociais destas diferentes estratégias de governança de blockchain. Esta comparação destaca os esforços de comunidades de blockcahin em redefinir ou ampliar os limites da democracia, assim como os desafios enfrentados em seus esforços em criar democracias digitais que não reproduzem as mesmas desigualdades econômicas e sociais presentes nos sistemas democráticos tradicionais.pt-BR
dc.descriptionA criação de modelos justos, transparentes e genuinamente democráticos de tomadas de decisão descentralizadas tem sido uma preocupação para muitos desenvolvedores e usuários de blockchains. Este artigo avalia diversos métodos populares para manter consenso e alcançar uma tomada de decisão descentralizada nas redes de blockchain para assessar a medida a qual o blockchain desafia as normas da ordem liberal-democrática. Em particular, compara e contrasta os mecanismos de consenso da prova de trabalho, prova de participação e Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance, avaliando não somente como eles operam num sentido técnico mas também (e mais importante) as dimensões políticas, econômicas e sociais destas diferentes estratégias de governança de blockchain. Esta comparação destaca os esforços de comunidades de blockcahin em redefinir ou ampliar os limites da democracia, assim como os desafios enfrentados em seus esforços em criar democracias digitais que não reproduzem as mesmas desigualdades econômicas e sociais presentes nos sistemas democráticos tradicionais.pt-PT
dc.formatapplication/pdf-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherGrupo de Investigación Cultura Digital y Movimientos Sociales. Cibersomosaguases-ES
dc.relationhttps://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/TEKN/article/view/64523/4564456552021-
dc.relation/*ref*/An Abridged History of Bitcoin. (2013, October 30). Retrieved from https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/technology/bitcoin-timeline.html Asolo, B. (2018, November 01). Zcash Algorithm Explained. Retrieved from https://www.mycryptopedia.com/zcash-algorithm-explained/ Beedham, M. (2019, April 21). 4 things that concern Vitalik Buterin about moving Ethereum to Proof-of-Stake. Retrieved from https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2019/03/28/vitalik-buterin-concerns-ethereum-proof-of-stake/ Biryukov, Alex and Dmitry Khovratovich. Equihash: Asymmetric Proof-of-Work Based on the Generalized Birthday Problem. Ledger Journal 2 (2017) Bitcoin is NOT a democracy. Retrieved from https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/97axoy/bitcoin_is_not_a_democracy/ Blockchain speeds & the scalability debate. (2018, March 07). Retrieved from https://blocksplain.com/2018/02/28/transaction-speeds/ Canellis, D. (2018, October 23). Report: Cryptocurrency hackers earned $20M with 51-percent attacks in 2018. Retrieved from https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2018/10/23/cryptocurrency-51-percent-attack Castro, M. and Liskov, B. (2002). "Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance and Proactive Recovery". ACM Transactions on Computer Systems Changelog. Retrieved from https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Changelog Cindx. (2018, September 01). Top-5 largest Bitcoin mining firms in the world. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@cindx/top-5-largest-bitcoin-mining-firms-in-the-world-bb98a1537aad Fukuyama, Francis. (1989). The End of History? National Interest 16 (Summer 1989), pp. 3-18 Galea, A. (2018, March 30). Bitcoin development: Who can change the core protocol? Retrieved from https://medium.com/@galea/bitcoin-development-who-can-change-the-core-protocol-478b8ac5fe43 Hashrate Distribution. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.blockchain.com/en/pools Hugo, Kristin (2018, October 29). "If Bitcoin Continues to Take So Much Energy, 'It Will Kill the Planet.'" Independent. Jenks, T. (n.d.). Pros and Cons of the Delegated Proof-of-Stake Consensus Model. Retrieved from https://www.verypossible.com/blog/pros-and-cons-of-the-delegated-proof-of-stake-consensus-model Kharpal, A. (2018, August 7). Bitcoin market share is at the level it was just after it hit its near-$20,000 record high. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/07/bitcoin-market-share-near-level-when-price-hit-record-high.html Lamport, L., Shostak, R. and Pease, M. The Byzantine Generals Problem. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 4 (July 1982), pp.382-401. Lindsey, B. (2018, November 11). Proof of Stake (PoS): What Is It and How Does It Work? Retrieved from https://blocklr.com/guides/proof-of-stake-pos/ Miah, S. (2019, January 03). Comparison of PoW, PoS And DPoS Governance Models. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@salmanmiah/comparison-of-pow-pos-and-dpos-governance-models-dcea481140f8 Proof of Work is several orders of magnitude better than democracy as a consensus mechanism. Retrieved from https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9wg6zq/proof_of_work_is_several_orders_of_magnitude/ Slimcoin. A Peer-to-Peer Crypto-Currency with Proof-of-Burn. Retrieved from http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~ids/realdotdot/crypto_papers_etc_worth_reading/proof_of_burn/slimcoin_whitepaper.pdf Study claims Bitcoin uses as much energy as Ireland. Not so fast, experts say. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/study-claims-bitcoin-uses-much-energy-ireland-not-so-fast-n875211 Tharoor, Ishaan. (2017, February 9). “The man who declared the ‘end of history’ fears for democracy’s future”. Washington Post. The Nasgo Decentralized Democracy. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://nasgo.com/launch/the-nasgo-decentralized-democracy/ Vries, Alex de. Bitcoin's Growing Energy Problem. Joule 2 (May 2018), pp. 801-805 What is Delegated Proof of Stake? (n.d.). Retrieved from https://lisk.io/academy/blockchain-basics/how-does-blockchain-work/delegated-proof-of-stake Why Proof-of-Stake is the Future of Blockchain Technology. (2018, January 19) Retrieved from https://hackernoon.com/why-proof-of-stake-is-the-future-of-blockchain-technology-b1ae997d79a8 Zcash (Equihash) FPGA implementation. (2016, November 16). Retrieved from https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/zcash-equihash-fpga-implementation/8509/3-
dc.rightsDerechos de autor 2019 Teknokultura. Revista de Cultura Digital y Movimientos Socialeses-ES
dc.sourceTeknokultura. Journal of Digital Culture and Social Movements; Vol. 16 No. 2 (2019): Ethics of Emerging Technologies; 181-195en-US
dc.sourceTeknokultura. Revista de Cultura Digital y Movimientos Sociales; Vol. 16 Núm. 2 (2019): Ethics of Emerging Technologies; 181-195es-ES
dc.sourceTeknokultura. Revista de Cultura Digital e Movimentos Sociais; v. 16 n. 2 (2019): Ética das tecnologias emergentes; 181-195pt-BR
dc.source1549-2230-
dc.subjectbitcoinen-US
dc.subjectdemocracyen-US
dc.subjectgovernanceen-US
dc.subjectProof-of-Worken-US
dc.subjectbitcoines-ES
dc.subjectdemograciaes-ES
dc.subjectgovernanzaes-ES
dc.subjectPrueba-de-Trabajoes-ES
dc.subjectbitcoinpt-BR
dc.subjectdemocraciapt-BR
dc.subjectgovernançapt-BR
dc.subjectprova-de-trabalhopt-BR
dc.subjectbitcoinpt-PT
dc.subjectdemocraciapt-PT
dc.subjectgovernançapt-PT
dc.subjectprova-de-trabalhopt-PT
dc.titleDecentralizing democracy: approaches to consensus within blockchain communitiesen-US
dc.titleDecentralizing democracy: approaches to consensus within blockchain communitieses-ES
dc.titleDescentralizando a democracia: perspectivas de consenso entre as comunidades de blockchainpt-BR
dc.titleDescentralizando a democracia: perspectivas de consenso entre as comunidades de blockchainpt-PT
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article-
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion-
dc.typeKarpetaes-ES
Aparece en las colecciones: Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociología - UCM - Cosecha

Ficheros en este ítem:
No hay ficheros asociados a este ítem.
Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem


Los ítems de DSpace están protegidos por copyright, con todos los derechos reservados, a menos que se indique lo contrario.