Why would governments use a blockchain to enact fiat? Why would they just not print it at random as they have always done? It is easier, they know how that system works, and there is no advantage to them to put it on a blockchain.
I guess they can watch all the transactions, but they can already watch the vast majority with our current system. I don't think they'd constrian their abilities for this incremental (tyrannical) benefit.
Blockchain advantages in cost reduction
Transparent blockchain advantages in surveillance
"To kill your enemy, become your enemy"
These are just the off the top of my head. Longer consideration would lead to even more usecases.
Isn't "cryptofiat" by definition the same thing we call "fiat" nowadays?
Yes and no.
No because it is blockchain-based
Yes because it government-issued and enforced
Another reason why the government would not want this is because with a publicly viewable blockchain everyone would know exactly what information is available and against them. With the current fiat system the government can not only monitor the flow of money but they do not necessarily need to tell a suspect of a crime the extent of the evidence against him (or what the government may be able to uncover in the future) which would give a suspect an incentive to confess if they have committed a financial crime.
How would it be any different than now?
Folks would trade bitcoins with other cryptofiat coin's. Governments would have the best of both worlds and bitcoin becomes the defacto reserve currency.
Or the de facto killed currency.
"Fast transaction? We have it, even faster than bitcoin, because we are PoS"
"Security? Our central bank and government hold most of the coin at any given moment, so 51% is not possible. Not only this, but it will never be possible - with Bitcoin, you are at the mercy of some terrorist groups having more miners than the honest taxpayers."
"Adoption? Nothing can beat a governement-issue money, the same as your grandparents used to use. Fully credit-card compatible - try to use your VISA with Bitcoin."
"You are in the Eurozone and you insist on being paid with something else than Euro? What is wrong with you? Maybe I should call the police."
Did you mean prostitution or should that have been Prohibition?
Both
. The non-prohibition of prostitution doesnt' cost (enough) money. The non-prohibition of Bitcoin could cost
a lot of money to some persons
1. I don't like the word "enemy", it brings hate and I am like Churchill, I don't hate people, I just compete with them.
[...]
This is a war and we are soldiers
A war in which soldiers compete is not a war, so why use pathological terminology? Thinking of the crypto revolution as a "war" plays into the hands of the warmongers whom the crypto revolution is putting out of business.
You got me on this one
The title is a reference to
Matrix Reloaded and is intended to prove a point, whilst the footnote is more about the actual psychology to have.
Meanwhile, what we, Cryptolanders, doing? Self-congratulation ("we're gonna kill banksters") and infightings ("my coin is better than thyne"). These are signs of decadence.
Seems like an absurd generalization that leaves out of the picture the coders/thinkers who are working on novel crypto projects... such as yourself, no?
One cannot deny that most activity in altcoin is about infightings. Not all of course, but most.
I think resistance to change is overwhelmingly dominant in authoritarian control structures, in government and also in the dinosaur banking system. Even if not, the innovation brought about by the decentralized ledger means we are at a huge advantage. Have you seen this idea for "crypto-everything"?
The Cryptoglobalist CoalitionUntil the matter of money (or reelection) comes to dinner. All of a sudden, they are surprisingly reactive. The decentralized ledger is not an advantage for
us. It as an advantage for
all. Hence
cryptofiat.
Hey, I'm French, I know what I am talking about, we have an A-grade in Stubborness and Stupidity (Africa, Indochina...) whereas the British were much smarter.
Is that a justification of colonialism (i.e. violent subjugation and mass murder) as "Stubborness and Stupidity", or do I read you wrong?
You read me wrong. I meant that France did not accept its colonies' request for independance and it ended up in bloodbath. Constrast UK, which negociated peaceful separation. Today, the Queen of UK still rules Australia and Canada (even if it is purely symbolical) and, more importantly, not much blood was spilt. So, this is neither a justification nor a denonciation of colonialism, just a reminder of two different ways to deal with a crisis: being inflexible and make it end badly for all (France), or be flexible and make it a win-win situation (UK).
