A centralized blockchain, run by some psudo-government private company like the federal reserve, will be the standard of currency in the future.
It will replace current fiat slowly, but eventually completely.
It will NOT be bitcoin but bitcoin will still be around as the standard black market currency, if an alt coin like Monero never overthrows it, which I see as highly unlikely.
Discuss
Why would a centralized blockchain be preferred to a decentralized one?
Who would secure it, and make the rules?
I don't think there is any incentive to prefer a centralized blockchain with unclear distribution backing and security brought to you by the same people who manipulate interest rates. They could perhaps have a temporary advantage by connecting all current financial instruments to it, but that wouldn't be enough to compete with the fairness of an open consensus on ideal money.
It might not be bitcoin, but it will not be a private company.
Because Normies like stability, and having a "government" agency regulating the currency will make them feel secure.
The banking Jews tricked the world into using our current system of trading backless paper, why would they not be able to convince the masses that their "stable" "safe" "secure" Crypto is better than the stuff that the "scary dark web" uses for drugs?
What is the opinion on Iconomi?
It sounds too good to be true and I'm concerned with its reliance on ethereum.
>Because Normies like stability, and having a "government" agency regulating the currency will make them feel secure.
as opposed to having your wealth in a speculative asset that can daily change it's worth drastically. hm...
>A centralized blockchain... will be the standard of currency in the future
Nah don't be retarded. Bitcoin wins, get over it.
>implying a central bank (or all of them) doesnt have the power to stabalize currency
I dont know how they do it but its surely within their capabilities. Setting a hard trade value between it and USD (eventually removing it). Pulling the exact same stunt with the dollar and making it backed by gold, until they decide it isnt.
Why would central banks accept a currency they have no control over as the primary?
>hoping bitcoin becomes legit
won't happen, the best hope is that it becomes the norm for black market transactions
Note that I said Bitcoin will still be around. But the government isnt going to accept it as their own
>YOU MUST PAY YOUR TAXES IN GOVCOIN®
Basically. Not necassarily that far in our lifetimes, but eventually in the future.
I do think we will see some form of government (or "government" like the fed) Crypto at least begin to be introduced in the coming decades though
Security would be a huge issue. Just imagine:
>Hackers hit federal reserve servers this morning, 1 trillion govcoins stolen. Hyperinflation expected to make all your current savings worthless.
A centralized blockchain would allow The Fed to continue to influence the economy with monetary policy.
Which is bad for everyone.
Itd be arguably more secure than our current online banking.
Especially if the central agency has total power.
>Got hacked
>Reverses transaction
>tax evasion?
>all funds and transactions are visable
>fined? lost court case?
>deduct balance from account
Assuming it eventually becomes mandated in the distant future. Its a government Jew paradise
Bad for us
Fantastic for (((them)))
The fed isn't even government own fuck them, only libtards would trust a private institution with all a countries money, I don't see centralised crypto working at all
I guess I should add, I dont think this is a good thing, or support it.
I think this is the direction the controlling interests of the economy will go
> crypto future
> no talk of mimblewimble
Veeky Forums can't even keep up with the news on cryptocurrencies, the one thing it's good for.
Thats the point.
The masses ALREADY fall for their control scheme, whether its by ignorance or apathy.
They can't pull the same trick again they would get exposed in the internet age, the dinosaur media can't hide all its cracks anymore
Whats going to stop them? If anyone opposes them, theyll be painted as the "bad guys", or maybe even "crazy conspiracy theorists" which seems to be the favorite.
The internet only works if:
>The majority WANT to be educated, which they dont
>The well isnt poisoned, which it is
>People will trust non-mainstream media more than mainstream, which thankfully were gaining some ground on
Oy vey terror alert orange today, take 10 shekels away.
Only approved currency is goycoin everything else is causing the economy to fail, they're tax cheats!
Look at india, they banned large notes to "combat tax cheats" and the population is for it. They are also auditing private ownership of gold.
There's going to be some advanced propaganda behind goycoin most people will believe.
This user gets it
Can't argue on that, just don't think they are forward thinking enough to go into cryptocurrency.
What are you going to invest in then user?
Centralized Blockchain FTW.
Oh wait that's Bitcoin.
Decentralized blockchain FTW.
Go US Treasury gov coin GO!!!
And who exactly has total control over Bitcoin?
I have a lot in bitcoin and like 10% in gold/silver. I read about cryptocurrency developments everyday and hope they will succeed. I like the ideas of a couple alt currencies as well. I say keep note on certain indicators of the blockchain like mining difficulty, google trend search results, the underlying technology of the chain, the usability and how it will scale, and a few others. It's speculative, but with an open market hopefully a fair unit of value will succeed.
> today
> my mother (73 years old) went to her bank to discuss with 2 counselors aged 30+ about her shit savings in treasure bonds (1.5% - 2% fees).
> them doing kikes like "hey it's going to be better next year"
> her : "what about bitcoin ?"
> they don't know what it is...
Bitcoin or altcoins will never go mainstream if banks don't propose it. And they will never do because they would lose everyrhing they buillt for centuries of parasitism.
Theyre pretty shitty if theyve never heard of it considering its been on mainstream media, as well as appearing regularly in my normie finance news app.
I dont think they will adopt bitcoin or a current alt coin. I think theyre going to make their own coin, based on blockchain technology, that they will give themselves full control over ( ) and propaganda it into the mainstream
The exchanges, their fake news sites, and their heavily moderated forums.
Bitcoin accomplished what took the fed 100 years in only 8.
The result is the same.
>with an open market hopefully a fair unit of value will succeed.
The market is closed and the 1% had all the coins before you even knew what a bitcoin was.
Dance puppets dance
>Bitcoin accomplished what took the fed 100 years in only 8.
And how far widespread is bitcoin? I would hardly compare it to the fed.
What SINGLE entity has complete control over the blockchain in such a way that they can reverse fraudulent transactions or force transactions on a wallet location to seize funds?
nocoiner btfo
You should start bernie sanders coin and give everyone who registers a wallet 1000 coins and see how successful it will be.
not following what's going on are you?
banks want the blockchain technology to settle among themselves. it's not for the public. it's for the banks. it will probably be some sort of share based voting system and not hash churning mining like bitcoin. a distributed ledger could benefit them greatly. it has nothing to do with the banking habits of the people.
And?
Theres no reason that couldnt coincide with a public use, mainstream blockchain as well as bitcoin / current alt coins.
A centralised blockchain is a big bag of pointless. The whole point of the blockchain is to decentralise money. A centralised blockchain is just a database.
Fucking retards these days
This braindead retard again
>buy muh shiny rocks
No. I am not a indian mudfarmer or a clueless chinese peasant
Read the thread
the banks want you to use your cc. they don't really want this crypto thing for their customers any more they want you to use paper cash.
Whats stopping credit from being baked into a blockchain?
nothing, technically if the users would accept such blocks any miner could create any amount of bitcoin out of thin air.
Im no tech expert but I imagine a flag could be added to a "coin" unit to mark it as a "negative" owed to another address
doesn't make sense. you couldn't spend a negative. and if you could send someone negative coins it would be utterly hilarious.
Well in a centralized system, you could only allow certain, certified wallets to send them.
As far as spending them, they could also send them an equal amount of "real" coins.
Guy needs 5k for car. I have 10k to lend. Send him 5k for car, and also generate 5k "negative" coins he has to pay back with interest.
that's really not how crypto transactions work.
cryptos allow for escrow operations, but debt is not something you can do with them, let alone interest. you see coins don't have a direction but debt is always a vector.
i'm not saying it's impossible to do it, i just really don't see how and why. so much easier to keep track of debt on the side you owe and whom you have a legal and irl relationship.
...
Im not really sure what route debt would take in a blockchain future, but Im sure there are plenty of work-arounds.
I guess I am overcomplicating it a bit. They could always just keep it old fashion and if you lose your case when you dont pay, the funds could be taken easily via a permitted entity like freezing a bank account now.
HEAR! HEAR! The very question all butt-coiners can't adequately answer.
I read the whole thing and you're fucking retarded
Thats because the answer is "no one"
If someone did it would be a 51% mining attack allowing double spending rendering bitcoin worthless.
You nocoiners are grasping at straws here
>If someone did it would be a 51% mining attack allowing double spending rendering bitcoin worthless.
51% attack and double spend is two different things. technically a 51% could take exclusive control over the blockchain in a particular way but couldn't violate the bitcoin protocol.
the dangers of the 51% attack is you get censorship rights over which transactions go into the blockchain and which don't.
what you call a double spend is really just issuing two transactions for the same coins but still only one can win and only a fool accepts a transaction not solidly on the blockchain. 51% is not enough to rewrite history. it's only enough to deny certain addresses access to the ledger making some wallets worth literally nothing.
>Such a compelling argument
That's retarded. You're retarded.
Hey guys, fake digital meme money will replace fake digital government money.
Bet your life savings on it!
omg another bitcoin rally,
nocoiner BTFO
What's coin is looking the dankest rn besides btc
i hope trump can end the fed desu senpai
>If anyone opposes them, theyll be painted as the "bad guys", or maybe even "crazy conspiracy theorists"
Yeah man it's crazy that hillary won isnt it
You're fucking retarded if you believe this. The govt will just phase out paper money and coins and all your money will be a number in a server.
>2017
>still believes msm propaganda works anymore
most people believe russia hacked the election meme
your naive if you think it doesn't sway public opinion
I'm just waiting for coins to crash altogether so that I can laugh about you idiots. No, I wouldn't even touch that cancer if it dipped down to $10.
...
...
see >Unbacked paper money will never replace metal
>probably didn't even read the thread
This would be amazing but would get him JFK'd
I can't believe Hillary actually went to jail for all the crimes shes committed and are publicly known about!
Oh wait, she's free and won the popular vote. Thank God for the electoral college.
This guy gets it.
Exactly, everybody agrees that paper money will eventually be phased out for digital. I think they will go the crypto route as it would give them 100% control over every transaction. A central bank that could only be dreamed of before.
Again, probably didn't read the thread. I'm not suggesting any current coin would take over. I think they would make their own coin and stabalize it somehow.
Possibly by backing it by the dollar. Just like how they shoved paper money on us by backing it by gold until they decided it wasnt.
>I think they will go the crypto route as it would give them 100% control over every transaction. A central bank that could only be dreamed of before.
you are a dense motherfucker.
crypto is a fucking waste of effort if you want centrally controlled transactions. you just go sql database and online transactions only. nobody fucking wants end users to use crpyto currency not even the end users. it's inconvenient to say the least. some people will use cryptos as an alternative to cash once state issued bills will be revoked. they will be labelled criminals and terrorists tho.
government controls the banks banks control your digital money. this is so low effort it hurts.
rt.com
>Unique currency can destroy EU economy, countries must have chance to leave euro – Le Pen
What did she mean by this Veeky Forums?
Redpill me on iconomi nocoiners
performance looks awful
>We are mandating that every digital transaction has to go through the new national bank of the United States. Other banks are now illegal, or have been bought out and are now branches of the new national bank.
>Use our new "stable" currency that has "all" the benefits of that bitcoin thing you've been hearing about in the news! Its the future!
Which one is easier to sell to the masses?
the easiest to sell to the masses is this:
>bitcoin and cash is only used by terrorists! continue to live your life as you have we are however phasing out cash for your protection.
And how does that lead to them gaining more control over the economy?
they already have all the control they need, cash is almost irrelevant now and losing relevance fast.
i know people that don't even touch a dirty physical bill anymore.
like i said it's cheaper to control the banks and let the banks act as a police force on your money. it already works, if the gubment wants to freeze your assets they start with freezing your accounts. they can increase the effectiveness of this by increasing cooperation internationally. it has nothing at all to do with crpyptos. it's all legal.
There's always going to be a powerstruggle for more and more control. It's just human nature.
Nothing would be more control than every fraction of a cent being kept track of in a ledger that they have admin access over to get away with whatever they want.
> it's cheaper to control the banks and let the banks act as a police force on your money
Fair enough
>A centralized blockchain
That makes no fucking sense you technologically illiterate goon. The whole point of a blockchain is that it's an immutable data structure because it's decentralized. Its integrity is maintained by having regular people "vote" with their computer's hashing power, and since lots of people own computers the control over the currency is distributed across many enough small entities that nobody in particular has large voting power on which blocks to accept or reject.
A centralized blockchain would just be a regular database, and at that point the idea of storing everything in blocks along with hashes of the previous block doesn't make sense anyway since it's just extra work.
i found that when governments can delegate the heavy lifting to someone else they gladly go for it. especially if it keeps up the pretense of "free market".
i'm talking about shit like internet censorship and stuff like that. much easier to pass a law and make the providers pay for the implementation than do anything about it.
it's the nature of the beast indeed. lazy and greedy.
in my country there is alread a monthly limit to the money you can withdraw form your account for free. if you withdraw more you pay both tax on the transaction to the state and fees to the bank.
it's not far when they simply just say "nah you don't need to withdraw money we don't need this paper cash it only costs money to print them and replace them and only terrorists use it anyhow."
and there is some truth in that statement too that's what makes this so dangerous. most people are not much inclined today to handle cash when purchase with cards is so convenient let's not even talk about the "rewards". criminals understandably prefer cash. removing cash would inconvenience them more than the public. it's inevitable.
and really it's just a strike of a pen no more effort required.
>The whole point of a blockchain is that it's an immutable data structure
it's not actually immutable. it's just hard doing practically today to alter it in retrospect. far from impossible for a world power mind you.
>Its integrity is maintained by having regular people "vote" with their computer's hashing power
the miners are not the people any more than bankers are the people.
>A centralized blockchain would just be a regular database
you dumb fucks i'm telling you banks are trying to use the blockchain to settle among themselves it has zero impact on your shitty lives and it's not about any more control than they already have it's about being cost efficient and trust-less settlement.
it's centralized because the consensus protocols parameters are centrally administered most likely. it is also not open to the public (nor would they have any incentive to participate) thus in a way centralized as opposed to traditional cryptos.
I dont think they would be able to take complete control of our current system in a singular database without selling it as a "new currency" ( )
While there are definitely cons to what Im suggesting (as pointed out, you can achieve similar effets by controlling every bank) i still think there are enough pros versus the cons to make it at the very least plausible, and worth discussing.
bump
this
the "blockchain" is slow, inefficient, and wasteful. its ONLY redeeming quality is decentralization and it's this decentralization alone that gives bitcoin any value to begin with.
"centralized blockchain" is an oxymoron.
it's a meme phrase used to discredit bitcoin and distract people from the sovereignty bitcoin offers.
And what about Or how incredibly useful it would be to a central bank to see every piece of currency in a ledger they control? No more dollars lost in oversea havens.
Or no more hiearchy of banks? They could cut out a lot of middlemen
About as compelling as "read the thread"!
IOW you blame others for your own failure to explain your idea properly. Most Veeky Forums users would see that as retarded.
From your answer to it is clear that you want to stick with fiat currency, but with a centralized blockchain instead of the current arrangements. But you haven't addressed the objection from that a centralized blockchain is just a database.
What advantage would your proposed system have over the status quo?
I post read the thread because I keep having to repeat myself.
>From your answer to # it is clear that you want to stick with fiat currency, but with a centralized blockchain instead of the current arrangements
I straight up said I DONT support a centralized blockchain just that I see this as plausibly happening
>But you haven't addressed the objection from # that a centralized blockchain is just a database.
>What advantage would your proposed system have over the status quo?
Yes I have. Youre just, again, not reading the thread. Thats the entire reason I said that before
Most directly with the post literally right before yours:
partially
Last link is supposed to be
My bad
>"centralized blockchain" is an oxymoron.
it's not. imagine if a central authority would license and control bitcoin miners the same way they license control and supervise and regulate gold miners. yeah it can happen. you think you can break into the mining market with your little cuck blackberry or something?
>it's a meme phrase used to discredit bitcoin and distract people from the sovereignty bitcoin offers.
not really again, bitcoin can become centralized in mining it's entirely possible that they make mining it a state monopoly if it gets adopted worldwide. or simply make a new coin where this licensing is in the protocol itself and miners not compete with each other but fully cooperate (like one big mining pool) in maintaining the network and still share profits based on their hash rate but only finacial services run a full client and end users only run lightweight clients. this is not something unimaginable. stop pretending it is. and it would be a perfectly valid blockchain and crypto protocol too.
ITT
Not an argument. Just letting you know.