They have Fedwire and swift, all digital currencies. This author mistakes block chain for digital currencies, and block chain is not necessary. Central banks get consensus because they can go to court and order armed agents to take our homes. Tax, a good enough consensus, done by legislation.
The author criticizes end point security, claiming secure elements operating with the null ledger service cannot guarantee security. But technology has shown that end point security is as good as Fedwire or swift or paper or even gold.
What this author really means is that we have no sandbox until we have auto traded savings and loans, a requirement for network congestion. That problem especially applies with bitcoin which cannot price anything without reference to a central bank currency, and there in is the rub. All of these crypto currency deals, so far, rely on socialist central banking services, and in this the author is right. If central banks gave up the S&L business, then bitcoin has no comparable techology, and would die.
But that indicates the original bitcoin concept was incomplete, not sustainable. Now what? The only people who seems to have noticed this problem is CATO and a politically incorrect blogger. Waddya gonna do? I suppose we could just assign all price compression rights to Timmy, just because we need to hold a hand.
No comments:
Post a Comment