My ideas are also at an early stage. That's why I went public with them, to get the conversation started. There are some unique properties of things like Java Containers, XML, VMWare/Virtual Machines, that encapsulate data and code to make things more portable. These are technical examples that techies can understand.
When it comes to decentralized monetary systems, portability and ease of use are key. At this early stage, we're not there yet. However our early stage is soon going to be swept from under us by the mammoth conglomerates that run the world.
Now, I'm not anti-government, or anti-corporation, to a 100%. There is a large grey area, that good government and good corporations can exist. They need our help though, even if they don't ask for it.
But until we can move towards are more usable system of competing blockchains in the same space, all we're doing is building API's, toolkits, source code, proof-of-concepts for the rest of the world who will take this and furnish their own system. Past experience shows that even public blockchain technology, you can still corrupt the space. So we'll still end up with corruption in this space, but the mainstream layman will get sucked into that too, since we failed to deliver a mainstream adoptable product in time.
We are already moving inside of a space where blockchains are able to compete with one another as they all are global and seek to provide the different services/functions I mentioned earlier better than their competitors. But it does seem like it's competitive as amongst friends who share similar ideas of concepts rather than competition between rivals. I'm looking at Storj and Maidsafe teaming up together rather than trying to outperform or outservice the other. I believe they both started out as a decentralized file hosting platform and they have both evolved way beyond that at this point. Maidsafe being more of a decentralized-everything kind of a thing and Storj focusing solely on hosting files in a decentralized network of nodes.
The part of building API's, toolkits, source code etc is done by the rest of the world, not for rest of the world. While the goal is, yes, as you say to furnish their own systems with the new tech. Some of them might aim to take aspects of decentralization and centralize it further. It's probably not out of the question for banks to create their own cryptocurrency but it is just what the crypto community hopes won't happen, at least not to the extent of putting decentralized currency down.
Others might seek to incorporate and replace their old tech with the new.
The only way for Bitcoin, as an example, to be corrupted is to integrate functions of corruption into the code itself. Which is why it's necessary for Bitcoin to be open source and open for auditing by everyone so that if any shenanigans actually does go down a fork is possible.
The finished adoptable product itself is what will determine when exactly is 'on time'. There is no deadline the product must meet, what's important is simply that it works.
I'm not sure if there will ever be a portability issue as it is run on the internet and on every online node across the globe simultaneously. So as long as there is internet connectivity it shouldn't be a problem. I might be misinterpreting you though.
In regards to government being involved in this, of course & absolutely, why should they not be right? It's a great way to alleviate the government of tons of work and pass it on to a network where users can perform their own governmental functions and possibly automate most of them.
What if we can have the people govern themselves with minimal effort, wouldn't that be something to strive for? Replace government with governmental smart-contracts.
You said "Past experience shows that even public blockchain technology, you can still corrupt the space."
What experience are you referring to?
In the sense of the space being corrupted by bad actors, I'm totally with you on that. But if not I'm not sure what you're referring to.
This is one of the reasons I'm on the radio tomorrow (hopefully) to discuss this with the people present in the channel. It's a long roundtable discussion to get it out right. Email type posting takes too long. :)
I'm thinking of Bitcoin XT vs Bitcoin, or Eth Classic, vs Eth
I'm also thinking the "Richlist" of every coin that was minable.
I'm also thinking every ICO where they fundraised first, and build very little later. Or don't follow their own roadmap. Where they don't make good on their promises, and the investments take a dive for the worse.
I have dozens of examples, but that should be enough to see some..
The time line, is that we have a decentralized community trying to build things that are adoptable for mainstream use. If we don't work together in some very specific areas, we will fail to gain mainstream adoption.
It is that sole lacking point, that opens the door for proprietary, government implemented chains that will take over this space "mainstream". It's happening right now.
It would have been better to have finished, useable products, what were user friendly, and interoperable now, so by the time big business and govt came in to dominate the space and feed it to the public, we would have already been there.
We're going to miss the boat of opportunity the longer we take.