You do realize that this is literally "the paypal model", right? Not necessarily saying it's bad; there's plenty of cases where it works well, but it's worth being intellectually honest about it.
-
That's one aspect of "the paypal model", an aspect that is common to all institutions that have freedom of exit. Claiming that "is" that model ignores the more relevant and important differences (open source vs. closed, trust minimized vs. centralized protocol, etc.).
Focusing on one broad thing that two things (and many other things including Ethereum which you are implicitly making the contrast to), and ignoring the crucial differences, then equating one but not the other with "is", makes for a doubly pathological false dichotomy.
-
-
The US has alluded to the need of governance, work together in order for greater success and to guide others. The benefits should be obvious. Why not leave it “open” to anyone who has created a blockchain, and also allow a vote for additions, in which key figures can join.
-
Right but you need formalized structure and a beginning point. From there the sky is the limit. Form sub-committees, grow as a blockchain consortium.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I’d say that this is what we call punch in the face!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
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.