You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: First Country To Issue A National Cryptocurrency (Functioning As A Legal Tender) Is Marshal Islands
If this is issued by a government doesn't that make it's just another Fiat currency but on a block chain?
I thought the whole point of crypto was that it is decentralised. Does issuing it on the block chain make it so?
As soon as a government is involved doesn't that mean it's centralised?
If the government keeps its promises and doesn't print more than it is set in the genesis block, then it's ok.
that statement alone gives me the chill, how is that decentralization ?
I think we should calibrate our expectations a bit. Blockchains, even permission-based ones (or centralized) have a lot of advantages over the current ways of value exchange (cash, banks). Security, transparency, speed, ease of use, etc.
Just because a process is based on a peer to peer cryptographic ledger doesn't immediately and immutably means it's a completely decentralized one.
Even the ecosystems touted as being fully decentralized are actually very "colluded". A very small percentage of miners is controlling the entire Bitcoin mining process, as you know it very well.
All in all, this is a social advancement powered by the blockchain, and I still think it's a very important step forward.
I guess in a sense I am biased by my current understanding of the block-chains globally.
All in all it is an improvement for these civilians, it is the statement from The difference between SOV and PTR where they claim it's fully decentralized that pisses me off.
We have to look code more closely. May be the only possibility to increase coins in circulation will be a fork and in my opinion this is transparent way to do this because original coin and forked one will be valued by the markets separately.