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
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.