but why Bitcoin? It's flawed on so many levels (Proof of Work, hard to extend, etc). Why not actually engage DARPA, or some equivalent organization to research and properly design a cryptocurrency that meets and possibly exceeds the current requirements of the Federal Reserve. I'm laughing too, and how ignorant our gov is when it comes to technology. So many things they could experiment with: Ethereum and Hyperledger would be a good start.
Worse is better. Bitcoin is neutral. Ethereum, Hyperledger, hypothetical DARPA-coin, etc all are not. Money is a social technology before it is a computer technology, and the elimination of a trusted third party is Bitcoin's principal contribution.
You can still eliminate the trusted 3rd party with other blockchain stacks. Bitcoin pioneered the concept as social experiment mostly that happened to become a currency by accident. The concept of a "Federal Reserve" and "the elimination of a trusted third party" are in direct opposition of each other, so Bitcoin doesn't even make sense from that point of reference either.
>Why not actually engage DARPA, or some equivalent organization to research and properly design a cryptocurrency that meets and possibly exceeds the current requirements of the Federal Reserve.
The Federal Reserve would actually have to any requirements for cryptocurrency for that to happen. Like most crypto things, it's a bunch of solutions looking for problems.
Proof of work isn't a flaw. In fact it's a fundamental part of monetary value, just as it is for gold and in fact anything else of honest value i.e. not valuable simply due to artificially-limited centrally-controlled issuance that invariably leads to corruption through the Cantillon Effect.
11 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 27.0 ms ] threadThe Federal Reserve would actually have to any requirements for cryptocurrency for that to happen. Like most crypto things, it's a bunch of solutions looking for problems.
What is money if it's not proof of work?