4 ms·
The problem is capitalism, but at least with Bitcoin there is no central authority to unilaterally alter monetary policy to benefit one specific group (those cl
by tenuousemphasis 5y ago
The problem is capitalism, but at least with Bitcoin there is no central authority to unilaterally alter monetary policy to benefit one specific group (those closest to supply of new money i.e. Gresham's Law).
- newacc9 5y agocantillion effect rather
- tenuousemphasis 5y agoYes, that was a dumb mistake on my part
- yifanl 5y agoIsn't there? If there are incentives in place that grant some group of people disproportionate power over others (early miners having essentially irrational amounts of coin to work with, or large pool operators owning a substantial amount of the hash rate), then it will trend towards centralization, because they end up being the main stakeholders. Bitcoin has _mostly_ avoided it, but not fully, as evidenced by the coins claiming to be the One True Bitcoin, forks driven largely by a small group of people who want to force some policy onto the blockchain, and not entirely unsuccessfully.
- tenuousemphasis 5y ago>Isn't there? There isn't. Early miners have long since sold off their coins. Pool operators don't own any hashrate. Yes there is some fuckery they can engage in, but it would be obvious and miners can trivially switch pools. Forks are evidence that there is no central authority in Bitcoin! They cannot change the rules for others so they go do their own thing. How can you not see this as an incredible feature?