3 ms·

We are largely in agreement as you concede my points. But you want to retain this word as applied, eg., to bitcoin. The sound of rain falling is neither "centr

We are largely in agreement as you concede my points. But you want to retain this word as applied, eg., to bitcoin. The sound of rain falling is neither "centralised" nor "decentralised". It isnt the kind of thing which could be either *in the relevant sense of the word*. When we talk about centralisation in economics and politics we arent talking about where databases are. Bitcoin is as centralised *a system* as any which exist, and much much more so than paper money. This idea that you can send a signal betweeen two machines you own and make some changes to your wallet is a gross misdirection. That has nothing to do with any of the value props of crypto. It has no economic or political meaning. It's purely a technical property of the technology.

olalonde 4y ago
> We are largely in agreement as you concede my points. Concede would mean that I changed my mind. I didn't. You said some true things but which are irrelevant to your original claim. > When we talk about centralisation in economics and politics we arent talking about where databases are. Perfectly agree (as I thought I had made abundantly clear in my previous comments). I'm sure for example that Paypal has databases all over the world and yet it is not "decentralized" in this context (in the economical/political sense). Centralization in this context refers to who is in charge. A centralized economy is one that is managed by centralized planners. A central bank has central bankers in control. Paypal has executives in control. There is no centralized entity that controls Bitcoin.
- mjburgess 4y ago
  Central banks only "control" money in the sense that they have been granted the exclusive monopoly by the state to provide banks with it (and so on). The state has not taken any view, yet, on who should have such a monopoly on crypto; but they can. Defacto monopolies exist in the form of the two mining companies. This is all extrinsic to crypto. Likewise, literally printing paper money is "decentralised". There's nothing about the present technology of "fiat" money any more or less "decentralised". What you're talking about is how the state grants monopolies. And, as far as that's concerned, crypto will not fair well in that regard -- not at all!
  - olalonde 4y ago
    I see you've reduced your position from "Bitcoin is a scam" to "Bitcoin has some potential vulnerabilities". The 51% attack vulnerability is a well-known risk. It was described in Satoshi Nakamoto's white paper. In practice, it is highly unlikely due to many reasons which I won't elaborate here but I there's a lot of material about it online. As long as there is more than one government, no one government can take control over Bitcoin. They can possibly outlaw its use within their own borders (with difficulty).

olalonde 4y ago

> We are largely in agreement as you concede my points. Concede would mean that I changed my mind. I didn't. You said some true things but which are irrelevant to your original claim. > When we talk about centralisation in economics and politics we arent talking about where databases are. Perfectly agree (as I thought I had made abundantly clear in my previous comments). I'm sure for example that Paypal has databases all over the world and yet it is not "decentralized" in this context (in the economical/political sense). Centralization in this context refers to who is in charge. A centralized economy is one that is managed by centralized planners. A central bank has central bankers in control. Paypal has executives in control. There is no centralized entity that controls Bitcoin.

mjburgess 4y ago
Central banks only "control" money in the sense that they have been granted the exclusive monopoly by the state to provide banks with it (and so on). The state has not taken any view, yet, on who should have such a monopoly on crypto; but they can. Defacto monopolies exist in the form of the two mining companies. This is all extrinsic to crypto. Likewise, literally printing paper money is "decentralised". There's nothing about the present technology of "fiat" money any more or less "decentralised". What you're talking about is how the state grants monopolies. And, as far as that's concerned, crypto will not fair well in that regard -- not at all!
- olalonde 4y ago
  I see you've reduced your position from "Bitcoin is a scam" to "Bitcoin has some potential vulnerabilities". The 51% attack vulnerability is a well-known risk. It was described in Satoshi Nakamoto's white paper. In practice, it is highly unlikely due to many reasons which I won't elaborate here but I there's a lot of material about it online. As long as there is more than one government, no one government can take control over Bitcoin. They can possibly outlaw its use within their own borders (with difficulty).