Isn't "having a central authority" the very problem that Bitcoin solves? You can't just say Taler is better than BTC because it has a central authority. Central authority IS the problem. All central authorities are doomed to fail sooner or later BECAUSE they are centralized. Has a distributed authority ever failed? What am I not understanding?
Isn't "having a central authority" the very problem that Bitcoin solves? You can't just say Taler is better than BTC because it has a central authority. Central authority IS the problem. All central authorities are doomed to fail sooner or later BECAUSE they are centralized. Has a distributed authority ever failed? What am I not understanding?
I think the idea is that Bitcoin didn't actually solve that "problem" because its "solution" is still dependent on things controlled by central authorities (e.g. telecommunications and lots of electricity), but managed to misdirect many people's attention away from that failure.
I use scare quotes for "problem" because Bitcoin defining something as a problem doesn't make it one. For example, I could define seatbelts as a "problem" and "solve" that problem by making a car that omits them, but outside my idiosyncratic perspective I actually created more problems and didn't solve anything.
Isn't "having a central authority" the very problem that Bitcoin solves?
“Central authority” more accurately seems to be the putative source of some not-well-specified problem that Bitcoin solves (often phrased as “trust”, but in any normal understanding of the word Bitcoin doesn't solve that, it just shifts it from a small known group of actors to a large and opaque group.)
All central authorities are doomed to fail sooner or later BECAUSE they are centralized.
No, all centralized authorities are doomed to fail sooner or later because they are things that exist in a universe in which all things are impermanent.
But this is true of decentralized networks, as well.
The real concern of failure is the likelihood of sudden catastrophic failure without warning and opportunity for an orderly exit, and I have not seen the case made that Bitcoin is better than major fiat issuers in that regard.
Comments
Isn't "having a central authority" the very problem that Bitcoin solves? You can't just say Taler is better than BTC because it has a central authority. Central authority IS the problem. All central authorities are doomed to fail sooner or later BECAUSE they are centralized. Has a distributed authority ever failed? What am I not understanding?
I think the idea is that Bitcoin didn't actually solve that "problem" because its "solution" is still dependent on things controlled by central authorities (e.g. telecommunications and lots of electricity), but managed to misdirect many people's attention away from that failure.
I use scare quotes for "problem" because Bitcoin defining something as a problem doesn't make it one. For example, I could define seatbelts as a "problem" and "solve" that problem by making a car that omits them, but outside my idiosyncratic perspective I actually created more problems and didn't solve anything.
“Central authority” more accurately seems to be the putative source of some not-well-specified problem that Bitcoin solves (often phrased as “trust”, but in any normal understanding of the word Bitcoin doesn't solve that, it just shifts it from a small known group of actors to a large and opaque group.)
No, all centralized authorities are doomed to fail sooner or later because they are things that exist in a universe in which all things are impermanent.
But this is true of decentralized networks, as well.
The real concern of failure is the likelihood of sudden catastrophic failure without warning and opportunity for an orderly exit, and I have not seen the case made that Bitcoin is better than major fiat issuers in that regard.