Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

>Developer centralization is another important point. BTC arguably fails at this when a small group, combined with extensive propaganda campaigns, artificially constrains Bitcoin's throughput. There are no valid arguments against raising the blocksize to 2MB for example.

If a handful of people could effectively destroy a “currency” at any point... it’s not decentralized in any sense of the word that is important for trustworthyness or longevity.

A government could crash its own money, but there is a strong incentive to not do that. Bitcoin or Eth has nothing tied to it, it’s entitely at the whim of some programmers who as I understand it, aren’t economics experts.

That’s the point I made above. You want to say the blockchain and hashing is decentralized, great. But when people use that word, they’re talking about (imo) how it’s “safe” to put money into because “no one owns the crypto coin” and if anyone still believes that latter part, well, they probably aren’t paying attention.



view as:

That's not really true though. They didn't "destroy" it. They constrained it's development and hindered adoption.

They didn't do it by themselves either. They got miners and exchanges on board as well.

Also if you disagree and you think there's a better way to develop it you can by creating a fork or sell your coins. There is nothing stopping you.

> they’re talking about (imo) how it’s “safe” to put money into because “no one owns the crypto coin” and if anyone still believes that latter part, well, they probably aren’t paying attention.

There's a difference between believing nobody has significant sway over how the cryptocurrency should be developed and you personally having full control over your own coins.


Legal | privacy