3 ms·
In the article itself, he points out that banking is decentralized and works wonderfully. He doesn't even mention email or phone service, both of which are dec
by pwinnski 4y ago
In the article itself, he points out that banking is decentralized and works wonderfully.
He doesn't even mention email or phone service, both of which are decentralized and work well enough.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago> In the article itself, he points out that banking is decentralized and works wonderfully. Except it isn't actually decentralized in the same sense as Mastodon is. You can't self-host a bank. > He doesn't even mention email or phone service, both of which are decentralized and work well enough. The same with phone service - it's not decentralized in this sense. You can't just run your own phone network, you can only choose from a single-digit number of major providers in your country, which are increasingly just multinationals. The only reason banking and phone service may sometimes feel they're decentralized is because of the high interest governments have in them, and the copious amount of regulation in the industries that prevent the worst kinds of consolidation and abuse of power. Email is, indeed, decentralized. And as many commenters already wrote, it's a disaster and a great example of how federated systems fail.
- notpushkin 4y agoI don't believe that government intervention is needed for banks to stay decentralised. The ability to send money between banks is just too convenient, why would they ruin it?