4 ms·
Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. Whil
by argonaut 10y ago
Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as
trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for
most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model
The problem with [a trusted central authority] is that the fate of the entire money system depends on the company running the mint, with every transaction having to go through them, just like a bank.
Sure, it's hard to say exactly what Bitcoin is for or against, given that it's a multi-faceted community with many different goals. But to deny that decentralization and lack of central planning is a huge motivation / driver / goal of both the original inception of Bitcoin, and also the community that developed around Bitcoin, is pretty hard to believe.
- mrb 10y agoYes it is hard to say what Bitcoin is for or against. But to be clear: it is not "central planning" in general that the Bitcoin community is against. The community wants no central planning of the MONETARY POLICY (eg. they want no long-term inflation). That is why there is a fixed 21 millions coins (therefore no policy to decide about), which is arguably one of the most liked property of Bitcoin. The original poster insinuated Bitcoin needed all-powerful policy planners ("Davos meetings"), which is false. All that is taking place is community discussions about scaling (block size increase), but it would be absolutely incorrect to compare this to "Davos meetings".
- argonaut 10y agoAll you've repeated is that they're not the same. You haven't actually given any reasons why this is the case.