2026-01-15 06:25:38

The story of BitTorrent is worth a close look.

It has validated a fact over more than a decade: true decentralization + large-scale practical application are not just talk. Enterprises and government agencies are quietly relying on it, just like Linux in the past—you don't need to know where it is, but it's everywhere.

From the perspective of consensus mechanisms, what have Ethereum and others been doing all these years? Trying to achieve decentralization through consensus. But BitTorrent tells us that the structure itself can be inherently decentralized—it's not about incentives, not about governance, but about architecture.

This is the key issue: which approach is more sustainable?

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

10 Likes

Reward
10
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GateUser-a606bf0c

· 6h ago

This is the real truth. BT has long proven that maintaining decentralization doesn't require tokens. It's a bit awkward that some are still promoting incentive mechanisms. --- Architecture is governance. This perspective is brilliant. Compared to Ethereum's consensus fuss, BT is much more low-key but lasts much longer. --- So the problem isn't decentralization itself, but who can survive until the end, right? --- After more than ten years of use, there's nothing more to say. Good architectural design beats incentive design, plain and simple. --- Not everyone needs to see the code to trust the system. BT is living proof. --- Wait, thinking about it, Ethereum's mechanisms and governance costs are indeed a bit outrageous? --- A good structure can run smoothly without effort, but consensus mechanisms need constant maintenance. Is that true? --- Sustainable? Ha, everyone wants sustainability but no one wants to wait ten years to see the results. --- I just want to ask why things like BT are not valued unless they have tokens. --- Actually, it's contradictory. Without incentives, who will improve? Without incentives, who will maintain?

View OriginalReply0

SybilSlayer

· 7h ago

The Bitcoin flood has long been a topic that needs a good discussion. The incentive mechanism is indeed a bit outdated; the architecture itself is the real key.

View OriginalReply0

DeFi_Dad_Jokes

· 7h ago

The Bitcoin flood was long overdue for a detailed discussion. From the perspective of architecture as governance, it's brilliant—there's really no need for that bunch of incentive games. --- Basically, it's still an engineer's mindset versus an economist's mindset—a coder versus a pie-in-the-sky dreamer. --- Wait, can this logic be applied to Layer2? It feels somewhat applicable. --- The most heartbreaking part is that enterprises are already using it, but Web3 is still arguing over gas fees, haha. --- Architecture > incentives. This phrase should be engraved on Ethereum. --- Things validated over more than ten years versus dreams hyped up in five years—numbers speak for themselves.

View OriginalReply0

RetiredMiner

· 7h ago

This is what I want to say: BitTorrent is the best counterexample, much more reliable than projects that hype up consensus mechanisms every day. People are studying incentive layers, but no one is seriously looking at what the underlying design can do. Architecture is power; power itself can be decentralized without the need for tokens. To be honest, the existence of many tokens is just to address design flaws.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidityWitch

· 7h ago

nah bro, btorrent's been brewing alpha in the shadows while everyone's obsessed with consensus theater. architecture is the real spell—no tokenomics needed, just pure structural alchemy.

Reply0