3 ms·
The difference is that traditional money is up front about that fact and doesn't use decentralization as a selling point.
by pcwalton 5y ago
The difference is that traditional money is up front about that fact and doesn't use decentralization as a selling point.
- nickpinkston 5y ago100% this
- KennyBlanken 5y agoThis sort of comment adds nothing of value whatsoever to the discussion.
- glenvdb 5y agoWell... neither does your's, or this one for that matter.
- tshaddox 5y agoWell and also the government doesn’t need to have a “selling point” because of the whole being the government thing.
- anonporridge 5y agoThere seems to be a weird perception that decentralization means that there won't be inequality of power in the system. That's not what it means. Decentralization simply means that there is no central power that can make unilateral decisions about the system like a government can with its currency. This explicit decentralization of power is what people are excited about, because it means any change to the system requires a supermajority of consent and there are no central points of attack that power hungry fascists can target and take over. Centralization can be incredibly efficient, but also incredibly fragile. Bitcoin is the anti fragile monetary system.
- bradwood 5y agoYou nailed it. Bitcoin is not some kind of panacea that will make everyone rich. It's just money that cannot be fucked with by central bankers, governments, dictators or anyone else for that matter. That's it.
- evilos 5y agoCan't it still be fucked with via regulation? eg China banning it outright etc.
- IAmGraydon 5y agoYep. That’s the thing that crypto supporters just seem to ignore: it requires an infrastructure that is owned and controlled by a higher power. Namely, the internet. In the end, the government has the power to easily shut this entire thing down. It only exists because they let it.
- glenvdb 5y agoYou think they're going to shutdown the Internet to kill Bitcoin? Even if they did, once the Internet was back up and running what would stop the Bitcoin network from continuing where it left off? There's thousands of people around the world running their own Bitcoin nodes, many also protected behind Tor [1]. In what realistic way could governments shut it down globally? They could go for centralised custodial businesses like the exchanges, but that doesn't stop the Bitcoin network itself. Also there are decentralised exchanges like Bisq that can't be shutdown. "Yes (you will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography.), but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years. Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own." — Satoshi Nakamoto "A lot of people automatically dismiss e-currency as a lost cause because of all the companies that failed since the 1990’s. I hope it’s obvious it was only the centrally controlled nature of those systems that doomed them. I think this is the first time we’re trying a decentralized, non-trust-based system." — Satoshi Nakamoto 1. https://bitnodes.io/dashboard/ https://bitnodes.io/dashboard/