6 ms·
I am making no claims about priority of problems, so I certainly welcome identification of other issues and proposals to improve them. If we mentally subdivide
by DoctorOetker 8y ago
I am making no claims about priority of problems, so I certainly welcome identification of other issues and proposals to improve them.
If we mentally subdivide all commercial activity between traditional/centralized/blind trust commercial activities and novel/decentralized/cryptographic trust commercial activities, then (even if it is not occuring yet) it can desirable for the supporters of decentralization to be able to assure themselves that the status quo can not undermine the economic value of the cryptographic trust community.
Even outside of cryptocurrencies we have debates about net neutrality, priority of packets etc... One could similarily wonder if current delivery services are able to say profit by investing in specific companies within a sector of products, and differentially prioritizing the delivery of their goods (or gentleness of delivery for fragile goods, or even non-delivery).
I don't believe in moot points, people can work on different issues, design solutions for them and then they can look at how to intersect/generalize their protocols so that it displays both or more desirable traits...
- PeterisP 8y agoOkay, in that regard the assumption that "the government or its postal system selectively withholds the goods payed for through cryptographic protocols" seems questionable. Is this a real problem that we're seeing in some markets? As far as I'm aware it seems that in general delivery services are decoupled from the payment for goods; the delivery system, no matter if it's government postal system or private parcel delivery, does not know and can not know how (and if) the goods were paid for. They may require some declaration from the sender about the value for insurance and customs purposes, but that's different than the payment data.