I just came across a digital currency system called Taler that solves the double spending problem by having a central authority
This misses the entire point. Anyone can solve the double spend problem with MySQL, the innovation of bitcoin is that it is decentralized with no central authority.
It is an innovation, yes, but it being an innovation is not the same as it being useful, or good.
Being decentralised with no central authority is not actually something most people want. Most people are absolutely fine with a central authority. They quite like having one if it protects them from crime and mistakes.
Bitcoin does not, and that makes it less advantageous for most people.
You are making choices on behalf of other people. Because you don't need it, doesn't mean that everone else doesn't need it. It's everyone's personal choice to use bitcoin. Everyone on this planet can use bitcoin. It's completely open system. You can also choose to not use it.
The way I see it, Bitcoin is a revolutionary in a lot of ways.
From a technical standpoint it proved a novel solution to the Byzantine Generals problem. Cool.
From a political standpoint, it allows people to own and transfer capital largely outside the control of the state. Also cool.
From an economics standpoint, it allows rigid, non-repudiatable contracts between entities. It allows moderately complex multi-party control of capital. It enables some fundamental contract logic. All very cool.
Now, is it suitable for everyone on Earth as a means of transacting their daily business, thereby potentially replacing all other forms of money? In its current form, no. Early on, it wasn’t clear what niche it would end up filling, so it was entirely possible that the protocol would grow to support the transaction volume necessary for that to happen and the ecosystem would grow around it to make it happen. That obviously hasn’t happened and I don’t see any reason to believe it will in the future.
If Bitcoin continues to serve in the roles that it serves today - as a store of value outside state control, as a means of transacting, as a vehicle for speculation, etc. - then I would call it a success.
No, it doesn't- it rejects, on purpose, the idea that bitcoin is decentralized with no central authority, except in a hazy theoretical way that is irrelevant for day-to-day consideration. Because Bitcoin is dependant on copious resources only available under a system with central authority, whatever authority that exists has copious leverage to shut Bitcoin down, if it chose to do so. Therefore, a system such as the one Taler proposes where a central authority is intentionally legally and technically limited to the narrowest role possible- solving the double spending problem- can be assumed to be feasible, bringing most of the benefits and none of the downsides of Bitcoin.
Comments
This misses the entire point. Anyone can solve the double spend problem with MySQL, the innovation of bitcoin is that it is decentralized with no central authority.
It is an innovation, yes, but it being an innovation is not the same as it being useful, or good.
Being decentralised with no central authority is not actually something most people want. Most people are absolutely fine with a central authority. They quite like having one if it protects them from crime and mistakes.
Bitcoin does not, and that makes it less advantageous for most people.
You are making choices on behalf of other people. Because you don't need it, doesn't mean that everone else doesn't need it. It's everyone's personal choice to use bitcoin. Everyone on this planet can use bitcoin. It's completely open system. You can also choose to not use it.
Why does Bitcoin have to be something most people want or need to be successful?
Bit of a revealing question, that one.
How so? I’m genuinely curious.
The way I see it, Bitcoin is a revolutionary in a lot of ways.
From a technical standpoint it proved a novel solution to the Byzantine Generals problem. Cool.
From a political standpoint, it allows people to own and transfer capital largely outside the control of the state. Also cool.
From an economics standpoint, it allows rigid, non-repudiatable contracts between entities. It allows moderately complex multi-party control of capital. It enables some fundamental contract logic. All very cool.
Now, is it suitable for everyone on Earth as a means of transacting their daily business, thereby potentially replacing all other forms of money? In its current form, no. Early on, it wasn’t clear what niche it would end up filling, so it was entirely possible that the protocol would grow to support the transaction volume necessary for that to happen and the ecosystem would grow around it to make it happen. That obviously hasn’t happened and I don’t see any reason to believe it will in the future.
If Bitcoin continues to serve in the roles that it serves today - as a store of value outside state control, as a means of transacting, as a vehicle for speculation, etc. - then I would call it a success.
No, it doesn't- it rejects, on purpose, the idea that bitcoin is decentralized with no central authority, except in a hazy theoretical way that is irrelevant for day-to-day consideration. Because Bitcoin is dependant on copious resources only available under a system with central authority, whatever authority that exists has copious leverage to shut Bitcoin down, if it chose to do so. Therefore, a system such as the one Taler proposes where a central authority is intentionally legally and technically limited to the narrowest role possible- solving the double spending problem- can be assumed to be feasible, bringing most of the benefits and none of the downsides of Bitcoin.