Yapmak istedikleriniz ile bitcoin merkezi olmayan yapısı pek uyuşmuyor. Tüm bu dedikleriniz hayata geçtiğinde çok tepki alır ama kullanılabilir.
Buna bir yere kadar katılsam da bu görüşün aslında tam tersine merkezileşmeye hizmet ettiğini düşünüyorum. Konuyla ilgili Nxt forumlarında benzer bir soruya yazdığım bir cevabı kopyalıyorum.
"I believe that cryptocurrencies will take -or have already taken, at least potentially- the place of gold as the universal ledger, and that this universal ledger must be secured via a decentralised network. However, just as we don't use gold in daily life but something that represents it, i.e., money, which is easy to transfer/carry and has some definite advantages over gold, we may use a centralised currency which represents the underlying cryptocurrency. Now, the fact that the gold standard is no longer in use is irrelevant. So, just as governments bother themselves with sending tons of golds to each other to re-arrange the global distribution of wealth, the underlying cryptocurrency will be sent in the end so as to get everyone to the same page. But getting everyone to the same page in each little transaction stands for centralisation rather than it is for decentralisation. It is to accept the authority of the underlying cryptocurrency with giving no way to any shortcut, even if that shortcut basically depends on it. It would be a form of totalitarianism and even authoritarianism to deny the benefits of the system I would like to create. Just compare the two scenario: In the first one, you have one cryptocurrency which is used everywhere in all transactions; in the second, you have many user-generated tokens all of which have their own dynamic, and all of which have their own level of security, own purpose of use. I strongly believe that the second scenario is the decentralised one, even if those tokens are produced and distributed by one authority. This is actually what Nxt tries to do, to secure the system with a decentralised network while giving life to many assets. Now, those assets already belong to one issuer which is in essence an authority. The question arises: Why shouldn't that authority be authorised for managing the transactions of that particular asset? In our case, the asset will represent bitcoins, based on Nxt, just like multi gateway bitcoins. But they will be able to be exchanged/traded/transferred through a centralised exchange, i.e., the system of the issuer bank, which will bring many tenets to the ecosystem.
Also, if you believe in the future of cryptocurrencies, this form should take over the majority of its use, mainly under the governance of central banks. So, my attempt is to establish a somewhat prototype of the bank of the future. And I believe this step is better taken by an individual who is a cryptocoin enthusiast and totally against the current prevailing banking structure, rather than by a greedy capitalist whose only aim is to take advantage of the system."
Bu son noktaya özellikle vurgu yapmak istiyorum; eğer bitcoin’in ya da genel anlamda kripto-paraların bir geleceği olduğuna ve dünya çapında finansal uygulamalarda etkin bir rol oynayacağına inanıyorsanız, dünya ekonomisinin geri ödeme imkanı vermeyen, sigortasız, güvenli bir aktarımın ancak bir saat sonra gerçekleştiği bir platform üzerinden dönmeyeceğini, bu eksikliklerin ise bankaların sunacağı merkezi avantajlarla telafi edileceğini de düşünmeniz gerekir. İkinci nesil kripto-para uygulamaları var olan dezavantajlardan bir sürüsünü çözmeye girişse de ileride global bankaların kendilerini birer DAC (decentralised autonomous company - yani ikinci nesil kripto-para block chain’i üzerinde tanımlanmış, merkezi bir otoritesi olmayan şirket) olarak tanımlayacak olmaları olasılık dışıdır. Bu yüzden, bizim girişimimiz geleceğin bankacılığının bir prototipi olacaktır, ve böyle bir girişime halihazırdaki bankalardan önce el atmak kripto-paraların özgür doğasını korumak için gereklidir de.