> A lot of the Bitcoin luminaries now seem to be coming around to the idea that regulation is OK and that trusting authorities (instead of just math) isn't the

> A lot of the Bitcoin luminaries now seem to be coming around to the idea that regulation is OK and that trusting authorities (instead of just math) isn't the end of the world. That definitely deserves a citation needed. Accepting regulation? Yes, sure. "Trusting authorities (instead of just math)"? Absolutely not. If you are ok with that, then why use bitcoin at all? A simple ledger on a central server works just fine and saves a lot of trouble. The federated two-way peg is at best a temporary measure. The first most obvious improvement is to conjunctively add the SPV security trustless peg as well, such that using a peg requires signatures of the functionaries AND a valid proof. Then the worst they could do is freeze your coins, which we're still not happy with. Another improvement not in the paper is to spread the functionaries out into multiple jurisdictions and selected from multiple distrustful groups. E.g. it would be nice if there were functionaries in Iran and China as well as the U.S. and Europe. > E.g. patio11 has described such a system (Stellar) Stellar's consensus algorithm (the same as Ripple's) is broken by design. It will not work as advertised, and provides little better security than the existing fiat system.