2 ms·
> The trouble I see is that authority then always accumulates to that node. This is why you want the node to be purely abstract and outside of anyone’s control
by wyager 5y ago
> The trouble I see is that authority then always accumulates to that node.
This is why you want the node to be purely abstract and outside of anyone’s control.
> the value of a unit there is still tied to American financial policy
Indeed. This is why you don’t want something backed by USD.
> And if we shifted to a completely imaginary currency, then we'd need consensus on the value of that currency, and whatever form of consensus was used would then have authority over the whole network.
I don’t think this claim makes sense. The consensus for a pure asset like bitcoin comes from marketwide supply and demand. This doesn’t create “authority” over the network any more than physics creates “authority” over the strength of gravity.
- indigochill 5y agoMostly agree. > The consensus for a pure asset like bitcoin comes from marketwide supply and demand. That's where the trouble lies, though, as various entities are doing their best to manipulate marketwide supply and demand all the time (advertising/PR/tariffs/sanctions/etc), and generally the more powerful said entity already is, the easier time they have of it. The laws of physics, thankfully, are immune to human manipulation. By contrast, a transaction backed by the trust between two individuals is harder to manipulate at scale. Laws still apply, but nobody's going to run global ad/PR campaigns about the value of your neighbor Bob's lawn mowing skills. That's between you and Bob.