Protocols MUST evolve, so who will take up the task? You are exchanging politicians/bankers to developers, that may sound nice but it is the same thing. Power corrupts.
You assume that code is crystal : Logical, Hard and Transparent, No code is Art: Emotional, Fragile and Ellusive.
If you have not already noticed, bitcoin is already under fire, there is a technical bubble with a burst waiting to happen, greed has been used as a virus, to expand the bitcoin network, but it is also its fatal flaw. Because there are others who understand Greed better and can weaponize it for fun if they choose so. And Who can destroy a thing, can control it. Isn't that right?
I'm in agreement. I see a future where we shall have governance via protocols. People will design the best protocols and all these protocols will compete until the best survive.
It is not a situation of no regulation. It is a situation where the free market will determine the regulation that it wants. I know you're not going to agree entirely.
I don't believe bitcoin is a bubble. The adoption rate is less than 2 million souls and real money hasn't even poured in yet. Bitcoin represents the ability to transact without relying on third parties. I see that people will want this technology. In fact, I see it being the dominant and pervasive means of wealth transfer.
Those that have a moral objection to the early adopters and their hoard of btcs are always welcome to design an alternative protocol. However, one must also abide with the judgement of the markets if that protocol is rejected by open markets. What we individually find just may not be what the market wants. Satoshi understood that and designed a system to encourage early adopters. You can't fight hard money capitalism Thaaanos.
"Protocolizing" behaviour and modus vivendi and taking human decision making out of the loop raises some ethical and philosofical for me.
It is what i call Law as
Force of Nature, for me
One must always have the choice to break the law. I don't know if you agree or not but think about it hard, because for the first time in history human societies will face that decision.
An ecosystem of protocols and an evolutionary process can avoid the above pitfall, but *not* at a personal level, only at a group level.
I insist that, for bitcoin to achieve currency status, people must be willing to part their bitcoins for
goods and services, not for/to FIAT, otherwise it's just a Bet as you said, a speculation, and like all bets there is a possibility of loss, and panic.
IMHO For the above to happen people should be encouraged
to spend bitcoins
not hodl them, and here lies a design flaw.
And yes there are grave justice issues with early minning that I believe is interlocked with the above issue.
Satosi's plan
propably was to demonstrate
a proof of concept, that it CAN be done, he propably didnt even thought of the issues of what a wide adoption can mean. His only concern was adoption rate, and achieving critical mass. I could bet that he doesnt even have a single bitcoin, or at least he has some hundreds.
And of course I believe that the bitcoin community should seriously consider, a proper implementation after techincal issues have been dealt, and all financial issues have apriori discussed. And relaunch the project
If not I will have to do make a proper one
myself, remember my suggestions about a rolling blockchain? If only I had time and clear head...
