4 ms·
Of course it does. It's like saying "but Uber doesn't own any cars, they can't run a taxi service". There are pros and cons with their approach, and you might p
by Grustaf 4y ago
Of course it does. It's like saying "but Uber doesn't own any cars, they can't run a taxi service". There are pros and cons with their approach, and you might prefer the traditional way, but they purposely chose another way.
- themacguffinman 4y agoClever reframing, but when you choose such a different way with clear downsides, it's on you to justify it. It would have been the responsibility of the founders of Uber to explain to stakeholders why they were justified in running a taxi service without owning cars. Just like if I point out that you're not wearing pants, I'm generally expecting the response to explain why that's justified for me to continue standing next to an apparently pantless lunatic instead of telling me that you already have. There's no part of the article that ever said crypto people aren't aware of this problem, it pointed out the problem. It's a problem. "I have intentionally chosen a path that runs into this glaring problem" is not helpful or interesting at all. If you have nothing more to say beyond "they know", then I guess I don't have anything more to say either.
- Grustaf 4y agoI think they have been pretty clear about what they think the upside is: decentralisation. No need to trust banks and governments. Obviously you don't think it's a good trade-off, but they do.