4 ms·

Agreed, nearly every commercial use seems better off simply relying on a centrally trusted authority. "This has to be on the blockchain. But! don't look behind

Agreed, nearly every commercial use seems better off simply relying on a centrally trusted authority. "This has to be on the blockchain. But! don't look behind the curtain to everything else in our company that relies (and thrives) on a single point of trust.

H8crilA 7y ago
Including quick money transfer. FED is working on an upgrade that will allow instant USD transfers. There's absolutely no reason why the central banks of the world cannot have instant transfers using their non-blockchain databases. BTC is only good as a deflationary pseudo-commodity, like gold. And like gold a good holding amount is probably below 10%, I'd say below 5% of the portfolio.
- teh_infallible 7y ago
  Yes, I always look to the FED for cutting edge technology. /s
  - H8crilA 7y ago
    Instant money transfer is not cutting edge. Some countries have had it for decades (albeit at a premium cost).
    - pjc50 7y ago
      http://www.fasterpayments.org.uk/our-achievements http://www.fasterpayments.org.uk/our-achievements : not even at a premium cost.
pilingual 7y ago
The underlying blockchains often do not have central authority; that is, no one entity can make a rash decision for bitcoin tomorrow. Cryptokitties can manipulate their contract, so in that case it is true a central authority is in control. Even though Bitcoin has been around 10 years there is still a lot of development and people are still figuring out how to approach this type of thing. The obvious answer is to start with a central contract and have a mechanism to slowly decentralize or remove ownership. It’s going to take time to get it right but it will happen (and even cryptokitties can upgrade their contract to include this logic).
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  The question is why it's the right choice for the underlying blockchains not to have a central authority. There are costs and benefits to decentralization, and I've very rarely seen a blockchain startup weigh the two rather than just touting the benefits. (I know this is a high standard for any new technology; I'm not saying I expect it on the front page of their website.)
- grey-area 7y ago
  The underlying blockchains often do not have central authority; that is, no one entity can make a rash decision for bitcoin tomorrow. I disagree, they have plenty of pinch points which allow de facto control. The small group of core developers control the laws of the currency and directly tied to that its value. They can perform hard forks and change all the rules. The users have very little influence there. Exchanges control which currencies are popular, along with huge amounts of the money in circulation, and change things like deposit/withdraw rules arbitrarily. The miners can attack the currency to rewrite history (has been done), refuse to use new rules, or switch to a new currency. Many of the fundamental tenets of bitcoin as it started out (that most users will mine, that most users will take care of their own wallets) have been proven too optimistic when in widespread use. People just don't want decentralised things given the massive tradeoffs and the rewards of centralisation for companies are too great. I think blockchains like bitcoin are a very interesting experiment, and currencies will escape state control as nation states continue to wither away, but none of the current currencies is fit to take that role, nor was the pivot of startups to 'blockchains for...x' a good idea - it's a solution in search of a problem in most cases. We are unfortunately more likely to see a corporate currency or one from a superstate take that role than a decentralised one.
  - yyyyip 7y ago
    If you (or anyone else) think you can effectively break bitcoin then there is a billion dollar bounty available to you in the form of a highly leveraged bitfinex short position.
    - 7y ago

H8crilA 7y ago

Including quick money transfer. FED is working on an upgrade that will allow instant USD transfers. There's absolutely no reason why the central banks of the world cannot have instant transfers using their non-blockchain databases. BTC is only good as a deflationary pseudo-commodity, like gold. And like gold a good holding amount is probably below 10%, I'd say below 5% of the portfolio.

teh_infallible 7y ago
Yes, I always look to the FED for cutting edge technology. /s
- H8crilA 7y ago
  Instant money transfer is not cutting edge. Some countries have had it for decades (albeit at a premium cost).
  - pjc50 7y ago
    http://www.fasterpayments.org.uk/our-achievements http://www.fasterpayments.org.uk/our-achievements : not even at a premium cost.

pilingual 7y ago

The underlying blockchains often do not have central authority; that is, no one entity can make a rash decision for bitcoin tomorrow. Cryptokitties can manipulate their contract, so in that case it is true a central authority is in control. Even though Bitcoin has been around 10 years there is still a lot of development and people are still figuring out how to approach this type of thing. The obvious answer is to start with a central contract and have a mechanism to slowly decentralize or remove ownership. It’s going to take time to get it right but it will happen (and even cryptokitties can upgrade their contract to include this logic).

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
The question is why it's the right choice for the underlying blockchains not to have a central authority. There are costs and benefits to decentralization, and I've very rarely seen a blockchain startup weigh the two rather than just touting the benefits. (I know this is a high standard for any new technology; I'm not saying I expect it on the front page of their website.)
grey-area 7y ago
The underlying blockchains often do not have central authority; that is, no one entity can make a rash decision for bitcoin tomorrow. I disagree, they have plenty of pinch points which allow de facto control. The small group of core developers control the laws of the currency and directly tied to that its value. They can perform hard forks and change all the rules. The users have very little influence there. Exchanges control which currencies are popular, along with huge amounts of the money in circulation, and change things like deposit/withdraw rules arbitrarily. The miners can attack the currency to rewrite history (has been done), refuse to use new rules, or switch to a new currency. Many of the fundamental tenets of bitcoin as it started out (that most users will mine, that most users will take care of their own wallets) have been proven too optimistic when in widespread use. People just don't want decentralised things given the massive tradeoffs and the rewards of centralisation for companies are too great. I think blockchains like bitcoin are a very interesting experiment, and currencies will escape state control as nation states continue to wither away, but none of the current currencies is fit to take that role, nor was the pivot of startups to 'blockchains for...x' a good idea - it's a solution in search of a problem in most cases. We are unfortunately more likely to see a corporate currency or one from a superstate take that role than a decentralised one.
- yyyyip 7y ago
  If you (or anyone else) think you can effectively break bitcoin then there is a billion dollar bounty available to you in the form of a highly leveraged bitfinex short position.
  - 7y ago