Is a hybrid coin possible? Decentralized, plus cash money in our wallet

[Witte Haai]

Hello all,

Today I saw this article 'Being cash-free puts us at risk of attack': Swedes turn against cashlessness.

My question: Will it be possible to create a hybrid coin? NOT centralized like Ripple, Euros, British Ponds, Dollars, ectc, but decentralized. Plus: We have also cash money in our wallet.

Or do I have to ask my question in a different way; It's logical, it's possible. But will the bankers cooperate, to loose their monopoly of creating money from thin air?

Allready thanks for the answers.

[BennyK]

Hello all,

Today I saw this article 'Being cash-free puts us at risk of attack': Swedes turn against cashlessness.

My question: Will it be possible to create a hybrid coin? NOT centralized like Ripple, Euros, British Ponds, Dollars, ectc, but decentralized. Plus: We have also cash money in our wallet.

Or do I have to ask my question in a different way; It's logical, it's possible. But will the bankers cooperate, to loose their monopoly of creating money from thin air?

Allready thanks for the answers.

I can't tell much about a hybrid coin but i know of crypto projects like amon and Skraps, which offers decentralized hybrid wallets and with that it allows users to keep both cryptocurrencies and fiat at the same time. With the banks, decentralization is a bane to them, therefore they detest any project which is decentralized.

[FrueGreads]

I'm not sure I understood your question correctly. Are you talking about a coin that is decentralized, just like bitcoin, but it has no limit cap just like normal fiat, so it can be printed? If I'm not mistaken ethereum does not have a limit cap right now, and there are other coins, like stellar that have a huge supply, so it's almost like if they didn't have a limit cap as well.

I'm not sure not having a limit cap is a good thing though. If this would help a coin remain relatively stable like fiat, it could be ok, but normally the point of printing money is to control inflation etc, but if the coins are not centralized, there would be no central entity to control when to print money, and the coin could end up becoming useless.

If you were trying to say something else, please explain in a different way, because I didn't understood.

[Hydrogen]

Hello all,

Today I saw this article 'Being cash-free puts us at risk of attack': Swedes turn against cashlessness.

My question: Will it be possible to create a hybrid coin? NOT centralized like Ripple, Euros, British Ponds, Dollars, ectc, but decentralized. Plus: We have also cash money in our wallet.

Or do I have to ask my question in a different way; It's logical, it's possible. But will the bankers cooperate, to loose their monopoly of creating money from thin air?

Allready thanks for the answers.

Bitcoin has a decent quantity of decentralization built into it. Its userbase is decentralized across a number of different nations. Miners were predominantly centralized in china but recently there has been a growth of support in other countries which makes it more decentralized. Important bitcoin development decisions and future policies are decentralized between the community, core developers and miners. There is no centralized body of control there. Even bitmain which once centralized ASICs will be subject to increased decentralization as nvidia, samsung, russia and others have announced plans to produce ASICs/mining hardware.

It might be safe to say: bitcoin is decentralized to a good degree. Other altcoins and crypto currencies also have decent decentralization practices.

In terms of how this topic ties into swedes opposing "cashlessness" I'm not certain.

Recently, in the news there are stories of the european union cracking down on google for having a monopoly over the search engine sector. In the past there have been cases of governments cracking down on microsoft for having a monopoly over the operating system market. If google and microsoft are penalized for having monopolies. Will banks also be penalized or fined for seeking to have a monopoly over digital currencies?

[timerland]

Hello all,

Today I saw this article 'Being cash-free puts us at risk of attack': Swedes turn against cashlessness.

My question: Will it be possible to create a hybrid coin? NOT centralized like Ripple, Euros, British Ponds, Dollars, ectc, but decentralized. Plus: We have also cash money in our wallet.

Or do I have to ask my question in a different way; It's logical, it's possible. But will the bankers cooperate, to loose their monopoly of creating money from thin air?

Allready thanks for the answers.

I don't get why you still want cash in your pocket when you already have a working decentralized cryptocurrency that serves the same purpose and is able to probably perform more efficiently. For cash, someone needs to be issuing it and that means centralization.

The closest thing to a perfectly decentralized cash system would probably still be precious metals.

But again, how are you going to implement a "hybrid system"? Unless you back a crypto with physical precious metals, that is not possible. And then that crypto becomes centralized, because someone needs to be holding these precious metals in reserve.

So no, crypto by itself is enough, we don't need a hybrid system. What that article probably means is that you lose a ton of anonymity on your transactions without cash, which is not an issue with bitcoin.

[fiulpro]

Bitcoin itself is decentralized. Decentralisation just means not having a regulatory body to control and check the influx and outflux of a certain thing, be it bitcoins here. Now you said you woul want to have a decemtralised coin and alsp cash in your pocket. Well thats what bitcoin is all about. It is decentralised, and you can always exchange it for your local currency and have cash with you.

If its banned in you area then thats alltogether a different story. But as per you question is concermed, bitcoin is already serving the purpose of the forememtioned coin.

[Noelbetty12]

This is probably due scam and hacking activities. With many being victims of it their government probably had to make some moves. Regulation would be a good thing so that nobody gets to rob anybody and transactions will be controlled. The disadvantages though is that refulations could get rough such that it would be very hard to use your accounts to transact business. The idea for both cashless and cash might fall into regulation. Because you cannot just send money anywhere because it could destroy the countries economic balance.

[nur rochid]

Bitcoin itself is decentralized. Decentralisation just means not having a regulatory body to control and check the influx and outflux of a certain thing, be it bitcoins here. Now you said you woul want to have a decemtralised coin and alsp cash in your pocket. Well thats what bitcoin is all about. It is decentralised, and you can always exchange it for your local currency and have cash with you.

If its banned in you area then thats alltogether a different story. But as per you question is concermed, bitcoin is already serving the purpose of the forememtioned coin.

decentralize should be with free agents because there is nothing to manage the transaction, this is purely peer to peer system so that we are directly dealing with our transaction opponents. but if anyone set it up i think this is government policy