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
“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.