3 ms·
Your argument would be stronger if you didn’t resort to epithets. Bitcoin was designed to be as decentralised as possible. It turns out this has serious downsi
by golangnews 9y ago
Your argument would be stronger if you didn’t resort to epithets.
Bitcoin was designed to be as decentralised as possible. It turns out this has serious downsides and it’s difficult to pursue the sort of financial revolution it aspires to without social revolution.
This currency chooses different trade-offs which the creators believe will make it more popular because most people don’t need or want trustless transactions. People delegate power for finance, politics and computing not because they are stupid or serfs but because they are willing to sacrifice some autonomy for the speed, ease of use and enforceable contracts which come with a central authority.
- Confiks 9y agoIf you (re)read the blog post I'm referring to, you'll find that your concerns are very much addressed. I actually chose to refer to 'feudal security' as coined by Schneier (at least in the context of computer security), because it is such a compelling and balanced approach to the exact same trade-offs you're describing.
- explainplease 9y ago> Your argument would be stronger if you didn’t resort to epithets. No, an argument is strong or weak regardless of whether you like the words used to express it.
- zaphar 9y agoThe argument would be stronger in the sense that it would be more persuasive. Which if your goal is to convince people is a highly relevant metric of strength to use. As disappointing as it might be pure logic is rarely enough in the real world.
- explainplease 9y agoYou state the obvious. The point is to encourage rational thinking and discourage emotional reaction. One person at a time.