I may be misunderstanding you, but a. Impossible, all participants need some capital or resources. b. Impossible, those with more resources will always have more power. c. Nonsensical, decentralized systems have never lent themselves to efficiency like centralized ones. d. Finehttps://twitter.com/Melt_Dem/status/1031194307087294464 …
With a & b anonymous resources, either generic commodity or open source, can be the *only* required input and the only basis for discrimination. That right there is a radical improvement. Claim c is ridiculous in terms of computational resources but not in terms of social ones.
![Alan [Doesn’t post unsafe links] Siefert](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1120941802305929217/U8ZFJN45_normal.jpg)
![Giacomo Zucco [I identify as a -e^iπ vampire]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1172971162919415813/Pn8O2gkx_normal.jpg)
-
-
Agree. When you say radical improvement, over what specifically? Are you saying that there is no open source miners or that they are not a generic commodity?
-
Over censorable centralized digital money that requires "identity", i.e. an involved but still very subservient and fragile relationship with a banker.
-
Ah, I was not looking at it through that lens. I feel like that is obvious and implied to those working in this space.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.