4 ms·
I’d say 50% is far less then the single-entity in a centralized solution. > Before you argue about WU fees, Bitcoin's fees are no better than Western Union's,
by noidesto 5y ago
I’d say 50% is far less then the single-entity in a centralized solution.
> Before you argue about WU fees, Bitcoin's fees are no better than Western Union's, hence Transferwise.
Early in a new technologies adoption there will be pain points. I consider we are still very early on. Work is actively being done to alleviate this.
Still waiting on your response for high-interest countries and the unbanked.
[0] https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-taproot-upgrade-dogecoin-technology https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-taproot-upgrade-dogecoin-te...
- kgraves 5y ago> I’d say 50% is far less then the single-entity in a centralized solution. So even with concrete evidence, you still cannot even admit this fact that Bitcoin is currently centralised? Maybe you should read about the 51% attack [0] and then come back to me and say with a straight face about Bitcoin being decentralised. You mean the 'unbanked' can use digital wallets like M-Pesa and Paytm? What's wrong with that? [0] https://academy.binance.com/en/articles/what-is-a-51-percent-attack https://academy.binance.com/en/articles/what-is-a-51-percent...
- noidesto 5y ago5 of 6 mining companies own 50%. Id be much more concerned if it was a single mining company owning 50%. I think you are the one unable to admit it isn’t centralized. By definition it isn’t centralized. Even in the current state.