3 ms·
>A decentralized cryptocurrency is a lovely ideal, but in the dirty real world, Ethereum and its ilk will win out. So basically you're saying centralized, inst
by WikipediasBad 9y ago
>A decentralized cryptocurrency is a lovely ideal, but in the dirty real world, Ethereum and its ilk will win out.
So basically you're saying centralized, institutionally backed and controlled currencies are better, or at least you're saying that hard forks are ok. Ok great. We have the dollar for that. Why even bother with cryptos.
- contingencies 9y agoWe have the dollar for that. Why even bother with cryptos. Network-based trust decentralization, even with limitations on its effectiveness, does provide somewhat provable insurance against state actors. Currently, state actors and state actor based monopolies are the biggest barriers to financial service innovation and essentially seek a continued global monopoly on financial systems access and financial systems derived intelligence feeds, largely self-justified with 'four horsemen of the internet apocalypse'[0] FUD[1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt
- cookiecaper 9y agoPeople don't realize that bitcoin is small-scale. If a powerful government had an interest in overtly or aggressively disrupting it, it'd be dead overnight, on both technical (51% attacks) and practical grounds ("rubber hose cryptanalysis"; large portion of mining power is China-based, where they already have a massive network censorship appliance). The blockchain is not an effective "insurance against state actors" on the macro scale.