In the 90ies, Microsoft attempted to lead people to their "better" (centralized) network, it didn't work. Few remember its name: MSN, yes THAT MSN. But the public went for Internet instead, and that was yet another of their failures (thankfully).
IBM tried the same, but similarly, failed hard. In this case I don't really think it was a matter of centralization that everyone disliked, but more so the effect of competing corporations and the market effect. There is much more to gain for these corporations to have the internet be open/distributed rather than trap surfers in a limited closed network.
MSN was to Internet, what any centralized altcoin is to Bitcoin. And take a look at the actors involved, their similarity isn't coincidence...
Libra would be a better indication even though it hasn't launched yet. Altcoins that people consider centralized haven't *yet* censored people's transactions. They all go through without a problem. Libra is designed to exclude certain countries and people they don't want on their network.
Yes, but the problem with these, is that they can. Same reason why things like undoing the blockchain (done by ETH) is so harmful. They have the power to selectively decide who gets to transact and who doesn't. So its restoring the manipulation States have over fiat.
Libra is under US jurisdiction, if it survives, it will have to bend to whatever rules they impose to it, such as forbidding transactions to/from my country. And if some are found, they would have to "reverse" them like a bank. Exactly the reason why they are so worthless.
Of course MSN wasn't the only one attempting "a better internet", i remember some others, but its all ancient history tho it felt funny back then (and i hated the idea back then as well). Same way some fools today promote "a better Bitcoin"...
.
