2 ms·
I'm not sure what you mean by centralized, digital currency, but it's probably not what I was talking about, which involves a publicly distributed Merkle DAG.
by nhaehnle 10y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by centralized, digital currency, but it's probably not what I was talking about, which involves a publicly distributed Merkle DAG.
Also, it's disingenious to pretend that Bitcoin had no bootstrapping problem. Bitcoin existed for a long time without significant value, and it seems stunts like spending what would now be millions of dollars for pizza were necessary pieces of solving the bootstrapping puzzle.
- runeks 10y agoI'm referring to your solution to the double-spend problem, which is the problem Bitcoin solves in a trustless manner. > This problem could be solved much more cheaply than in Bitcoin by using signatures by a trusted (e.g. elected) well-known council. This is a centralized solution, where a group of -- albeit elected -- officials have complete control over the history of all balances. I'm arguing that no one is interested in such a system. No one wants democratic money, when it comes down it, is what I'm arguing. They want trustless money. I'm also arguing that Bitcoin has monetary value in and of itself -- because it has use value -- and that its dollar price is a symptom of that, not the other way around. Even with zero dollars bidding on bitcoins, Bitcoin can be used for spam prevention -- out of which it was derived in the first place (Hashcash).