Giving the key holders too much power indeed could be bad idea. But holding the funds in a multisig address is a great solution. We may all trust tonych, but the point is - not everyone will trust a single man to keep all the funds. Its easier to trust a group of unrelated people than one person. "Power is a great seducer."
The funds keepers only need to be honest people with very good reputation, and guarantee the funds will be intact. They should not hold any power on making decisions, or invest or moreover to have some interest.
They just should hold and be responsive. Having those funds secured until distribution will make it easier for the project to attract more investors, and clear up FUD. In any case, though I "hail" no-one
, I am sure tonych makes the right decision on this
your key argument holds and fails on "only need to be honest people". Fucking LOL. Diogenes enteres the scene, with his lantern in broad daylight, people ask him wtf mate, he says im looking for an honest man amongst you.
To trust tonych is far easier than to trust 3 people, especially together. A group is shit. A group is a horde, can be herded, individuals are elegant, groups only leave massive amounts of shit - see bitcoin, it could have evolved if it was 1 person making decision instead of 5.
Tonych dont make the same mistake as Satoshi, keep control and carry on, distribution method is excellent despite maybe 2 people complaining, and they can go make their own distribution method as a group.
Ehm... Man whats up with you?
Why so much distrust in people? There are lots of honest people, and even very honest ones (like me for example
). I have seen some others too, so I am not the only one
. You are free to believe or not, but I would be less cinical...
You don't seem to like democracy, right? Would definitely prefer totalitarian systems it seems. Well you are right to some extend, totalitatian systems are more effective. But there are so much other benefits in democratic approach... This is very interesting topic (to me at least), but this thread is not the right place to discuss it though...
" dont repeat the same mistake as Satoshi"
That was a good one lol
. How far BTC would have gone, if Satoshi kept all the power..?
i too am very honest, probably the most honest up in this thread right after tonych. The problem is groups and group dynamics. Groups I do not trust, the bigger the worse they get.
See you already began talking about politics. Democrat sure, depends on flavor, representative or direct? A group to distribute byteblls is not democratic at all it is oligopoly or oligarchy at best.
Btc woul have biggee blocksize by now if Satoshi was around.
. I wanted to show (without a lot of words)that there is'nt (can’t be) a valide answer at this time. Thast’s the problem.. So, tony has to adjust (as he explaint) to give everyone a real chance in the next rounds..
.
