pull down to refresh

The decentralization. It creates uncertainty. You may wake up tomorrow and find the value of BTC being extremely low because alot of people just decided BTC isnt cool anymore. This cant happen with dollars or Euros because it more or less forced to be used. And this force may also find its way into Bitcoin, you may wake up one day and find out China or USA or some other government has onlined a facility with 51% of the hashrate and stopping all on-chain activity because they want only their money to be used as money
What the.. Huh? How is decentralization, the main feature of bitcoin, a negative? So the value of bitcoin is volatile, that I can agree with can be a bad thing (for now).
If a country manages a 51% attack it would only work for 1 block before everyone realizes what just happened and goes back to the original chain. It would be extraordinarily expensive and useless to do.
reply
Money has only ever worked for the most part thanks to kings (or presidents) they decide what the people use as money and that gives comfort. Its also why Vitalik Buterin keeps hanging around Ethereum, he gives comfort to most investors. Not having a king or a vitalik creates uncertainty. Thats all im going to say.
reply
So you want centralization and the same old scammy system. 51% attack will work only in theory but in practice it won't do shit to the network. And don't see any offenses but if you're against decentralization why are you even here ?
reply
🤮
reply
What about the Rai stones.. they didn't have any king or figurehead. They were just gigantic immovable stones and they worked for hundreds if not thousands of years as money.
reply
They must have had a king initially
reply
I'm sure they had a leader of some sort, but the entire community agreed the stones had value. Not one single person.
reply