Unlike Dash, however, a key aspect of a Bank of England-issued token would be control over its distribution and supply by the central bank, something that operates in a fashion opposite to that of Dash.
Sorry but that's just not true. Evan Duffield has demonstrated his complete control over the parameters of his Dash project on at least three separate occasions.
1. Evan could have relaunched after the disaster of the initial Instamine, yet he elected not to do the obviously right thing.
2. Evan later arbitrarily reduced by 20% the total emission of Dash, thus greatly compounding the rich-get-richer effect of Masternodes staking Instamined coins.
3. Evan suddenly and arbitrarily rebranded the Darkcoin project to Dash over the objections of bagholders and devs like vertoe who resented having their Darkcoin roadmap taken away and replaced with a brand stolen from dish soap.
The Bank of England has many more checks and balances within its governance structure than Dash, which is merely the vanity project of one random dude who treats it as his personal plaything.
At any moment Evan may again decide to change the brand and/or emission.
Nothing is fixed in Dash; Dash is only whatever Evan does. Nothing more, nothing less.
Source:
Anyone who's been around long enough knows nothing in Dash is ever set in stone and we listen to the community. Last time we removed the block halving we received a lot of crap, here's the problems with yearly halving.
- It's too fast and could destroy the coin
- It's way too much (50% per year)
- We already have formula for controlling the supply
Let's have a vote!
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=525093.0 Wow, governance via BitcoinTrollTalk polling. Of course most of us realize Evan only listens to the Yes Men sockpuppet side of the community asking him to do whatever he wanted to do anyway.
