interesting article. when i read i said why not. interesting theory for not use cash.
but i still believe bitcoin was created for decentralization.
and i think monero brings almost full anonymity.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
interesting article. when i read i said why not. interesting theory for not use cash.
but i still believe bitcoin was created for decentralization.
and i think monero brings almost full anonymity.
Thanks. I just like to get people thinking, especially now that I believe this is more likely than not something we ought to be keeping an eye on.
Decentralization could have been imagined as a solution to having something not be able to be deleted, if it is stored in so many different locations. I am not saying that this is how it is by the way. Only that with everything I have thought about, it seems more probable to me that this is the case.
I will ask you one thing though. If Monero is the closest to anonymous, and yet, it is still only "almost anonymous," then do these digital currencies deserve the label "cryptocurrencies?"
I would have to say not, and that perhaps this label was also intended just to help sell the idea that they're about anonymity when they are about the exact opposite. There are so many other things in modern society that also serve purposes counter that which is suggested by their titles.
bitcoin is fully transparent and i think it brings more trust to people who use it.
the name is cryptocurrenty because the cryptography methods are used to secure the transactions and also to have control of creation of the currency. so i did not understand why they do not deserve the label cryptocurrencies... it is related to the secure of the transactions
@son-of-satire
I'm sure he'll bring it up in a later article, but Bitcoin is being used by millions of "unbanked" people, meaning people that use cash but do not use banks will use Bitcoin. This will help transition people off of cash and into entirely digital currency. Kind of a reverse psychology.