3 ms·

Pardon my curiosity, but what would be a case of blockchain making something worse?

• kpil 10y ago
  Most places where you already have a trusted 3rd party in place, or you do not need to trust anyone but yourself? Especially if you have a limited time to clear transactions.
• aeturnum 10y ago
  Bitcoin makes moving money around slower, public, more expensive and monolithic. Its single advantage is that you don't have to trust anyone. That's a big thing, obviously, but it's hard to say it made the payment functionaliy better.
  • bdamm 10y ago
    That's not right at all. Intra-bank systems for transferring money are not only quite complex, but in many cases they are open to analysis by government middlemen, which is a sort of warped public reveal. This is the basis of "sanctions", using intra-bank mechanisms to effect public policy on an international stage. Bitcoin's main problem is that you have to transfer value into and out of it somehow. In most other ways it is far superior to existing currency movement mechanisms.
    • aeturnum 9y ago
      >That's not right at all. You say this, yet what you described doesn't contradict my description at all. It is true that banks will do things governments ask them to do. It is also true that bank transfers are not perfectly private. All the drawbacks of bitcoin are also true. If you're going to defend it as, "far superior to existing currency movement mechanisms," then you should say why you think it is. I think it isn't - for the reasons stated.
    • kpil 9y ago
      I would argue that lawful interception is a feature, not a problem. In those cases it is a problem with government insight, the actual problem is the government itself, and there are more pressing problems to deal with, rather than worrying about the money transfer systems.