▲ | munificent 6 days ago | |||||||
> is distributed among all users of that currency. Right. What you propose is that you take government's hand off the lever and a million users will all equally get to gently rest their pinky on it and distribute the power equally. I have never seen anything in the history of the world or my understanding of sociology to indicate that such a power structure has any stability. If you give out power in a free-for-all, what tends to happen is: 1. All of the participants already have some unequal distribution of power going in. 2. Those who have more are able to use that to claim a little more of the new resource. 3. Once they do they, they are able to use the increased inequality to claim even more. 4. Go to 2. The natural tendency is towards increasing inequality. It takes a ton of work to build and maintain structures that encourage any level of egalitarianism. | ||||||||
▲ | idiotsecant 5 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||
You're over abstracting a very simple thing. No user can, for example, change the inflationary rate of a decentralized cryptocurrency. It requires network consensus. The party making the change would need to control the vast majority of the consensus power, whether than is ASICs for pow or base currency for pos, at which point they have massive incentive to not do that on account of the loss of power destroying all their wealth would represent. Non-fiat currency is the most egalitarian system possible. | ||||||||
|