I think what Jim Willie is referring to is the overall concept of cryptocurrencies; they will want to centralize and utilize the same technology, pass off their own, and "corrupt" cryptocurrencies as a whole.
There isn't any way that Bitcoin can really be corrupted, aside form hard forks or other similar events, however those require a majority of the users to agree.
I think if Jim spent a little more time researching Bitcoin he'd have an idea of why it would be difficult to corrupt, but he does bring up a valid point, although it is somewhat difficult to understand his view.
There isn't any way that Bitcoin can really be corrupted, aside form hard forks or other similar events, however those require a majority of the users to agree.
I think if Jim spent a little more time researching Bitcoin he'd have an idea of why it would be difficult to corrupt, but he does bring up a valid point, although it is somewhat difficult to understand his view.
Well I'm not suggesting the blockchain can be broken. What I'm asking is how will banks try to corrupt things?
I mean Ethereum had Goldman Sachs employees involved but more worrying is ether doesnt have a fixed amount which in my mind misses the point of bitcoin. Plus there are probably ways banks could create a layer on Bitcoin and get involved with fractional reserve banking etc. My hunch is they will simply make a 'Bitcoin' bank account which is really a derivative of Bitcoin......will the masses know any different?
