All these were centralised money issued by authorities of smaller scale than the federal US scale, but still centralised money.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
All these were centralised money issued by authorities of smaller scale than the federal US scale, but still centralised money.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Some of the currencies like Farmers and Merchants were little trade organizations in small towns. They were just groups of Farmers and Merchants who came together to create little lending pools. That's pretty decentralized.
Ethnic communities, in the United States still create little underground lending pools like this, today. These "unbanked" people get a group of 10 people together and they get pen and paper and they create a "ledger". Each of the 10 people all create their own ledger and everybody is "witnessing" it, so nobody can cheat each other. That creates "consensus". Its like a blockchain on paper.
There were literally thousands of currencies in the United States. How much more decentralized does it need to be to be considered decentralized? Centralization was born out of centralized governments. Prior to centralized economics there had to centralized politics. Think of all of the tribal governments who were decentralized all over the world. Most of these tribes were so small that they didn't even use money because they used "I owe you".
Which should remind people that debt was born before money and even debt was decentralized. For example, I would remember in my brain how much I owed you and you would remember in your brain how much you were owed. Just like blocks needed to be validated by the network to get a consensus. If I owed you money and you and I disagreed how much each owed. Then we might go look for a witness who observed the handshake deal. Again, we are looking for consensus and validation of the ledger. This works when there are very few transactions, but it doesn't work at scale. You can't run a modern economy in your mind.
Even the new blockchains are moving a way from full decentralization because it takes too long for each node to validate every single block in the entire chain. The newer blockchains are moving toward partial validation of their "corner" of the chain. These are "trust" nodes or validators. Again, the blockchain is repeating some of the mistakes of traditional money system and they are implementing similar solutions.
I am all about rebuilding the world in crypto. We just need to build back better and learn from the mistakes of the past.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I think you totally miss the point here.
If there is a unqiue point of failure then the currency is not decentralised.
At least this is the meaning of the word "decentralised" in the blockchain world.
I understand you give the the word "decentralised" a different meaning. That's why we can not communicate.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I think the miscommunications comes from the black and whiteness of central vs decentral. There are currencies that more centralized and there are currencies that are less centralized.
Almost no currency systems, crypto or paper, have a unique point of failure. Even the original decentralized banks didn't have a unique point of failure. The truth is these banks fail for the exact same reason that some blockchains fail and that is through consensus.
Just look at historical examples of 51% attacks on blockchains and you can see a similar mechanism play out on traditional banks. If a certain number depositors agree (consensus) that the bank can't be trusted and they decide to withdraw then they can cause the bank to become insolvent. The safety for traditional banks is their reserve ratio and the Feds.
Historically, there were crowds that would rush the banks and withdraw everything all at the same time that caused failure. If everybody tomorrow refused to accept or trade Bitcoin it would also fail. It only has value through consensus. Blockchain technology is the modern way of improving consensus and building trust, but technology only goes so far.
There are already coins out there that have superior consensus protocols to Bitcoin, but have less value. In fact all of the coins have less dollar value per coin as well as total market cap. This shows that technological superiority alone doesn't equate to value in exchange for dollars. This implies that social consensus still holds higher weight for value.
Even Bitcoin itself has forked a few times. This implies that it wasn't perfect. The lack of consensus just wasn't enough to destroy the coin.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta