No one is expecting it to topple governments or replace the almighty dollar.
You know how when you're travelling, you can use a VISA anywhere in the world?
Same difference, just better.
Topic: Bitcoin will *not* attack/fight/etc central banking and fiat currency - page 3. (Read 144952 times)
December 28, 2013, 05:27:31 PM
December 28, 2013, 05:19:34 PM
Bitcoin will simply mind its own business, as we work towards building a better way to store wealth and exchange payments with each other. If central banking or fiat currency becomes less relevant during this process, then this is just technological evolution at work.
I wrote this post in response to Paul Krugman's latest "Bitcoin is Evil" piece (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/bitcoin-is-evil/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto&_r=1&). In Dr. Krugman's post, bitcoin is referred to as "a weapon intended to damage central banking and money issuing banks."
This is not true. Bitcoin is an experimental system that attempts to solve the double-spend problem in a trustless manner. As SheHadManHands notes, it is a practical implementation of a system that may suffer from "the 60 year problem in computer science, known as the Two Generals' Problem. It enables a decentralized network to achieve consensus on a ledger of assets, without requiring any trust between parties."
I propose we take the high road as we move forward with bitcoin. Here's what I mean: If you say bitcoin is a weapon designed to damage central banking, you sound angry and hostile. If you say that bitcoin is a ground-breaking peer-to-peer electronic cash system, and politely discuss that its widespread adoption may make existing financial systems less relevant and motivate governments to re-think antiquated tax laws, you sound intelligent and open-minded.
I wrote this post in response to Paul Krugman's latest "Bitcoin is Evil" piece (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/bitcoin-is-evil/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto&_r=1&). In Dr. Krugman's post, bitcoin is referred to as "a weapon intended to damage central banking and money issuing banks."
This is not true. Bitcoin is an experimental system that attempts to solve the double-spend problem in a trustless manner. As SheHadManHands notes, it is a practical implementation of a system that may suffer from "the 60 year problem in computer science, known as the Two Generals' Problem. It enables a decentralized network to achieve consensus on a ledger of assets, without requiring any trust between parties."
I propose we take the high road as we move forward with bitcoin. Here's what I mean: If you say bitcoin is a weapon designed to damage central banking, you sound angry and hostile. If you say that bitcoin is a ground-breaking peer-to-peer electronic cash system, and politely discuss that its widespread adoption may make existing financial systems less relevant and motivate governments to re-think antiquated tax laws, you sound intelligent and open-minded.
Jump to: