[enknamel]

I really dislike how decentralized cryptocurrencies are. I'd be ok with how it is currently implemented as long as there was some level of central governance to guarantee the currency could continue forever. What's the point of mining bitcoin once all coins are allocated? Just for transaction fees? Or would people push to generate more coins? A central governing authority would be great in a situation like this. Right now it is all open and built on consensus which is open to attack.

[dlubarov]

Being decentralized doesn't mean that Bitcoin can't evolve, though. The process is just

- Someone proposes a change to the rules, effective as of some future block number

- Each miner decides whether to adopt the proposed rules

- The network is forked at that block number; some miners work on the original chain with the old rules while others work on a fork with the new rules

- The network converges as most miners, exchanges, etc. will end up honoring whichever fork has more traction. (Sometimes the fork with less traction remains somewhat viable; see Ethereum Classic.)

[enknamel]

And all of those points is why it is a poor currency. Great we can fork at any time and from any single transaction. So, we can essentially make infinite currencies. That's hugely wasteful and causes mass inflation. It makes it hard to invest, or even take seriously, a currency that may become worthless tomorrow. If you add some centralized backing, like with USD for example, you get way more clout. What would bitcoin be worth if it had government backing and insurance? I think it would be hugely more valuable and attract a lot more interest. As it is now, it is too speculative, and prone to wild swings in pricing. Also you get people who want it even more decentralized by making it ASIC resistant vs people (China) who want to keep it ASIC based to restrict access. It's just a mess right now.

[Cyberdog]

> Great we can fork at any time and from any single transaction. So, we can essentially make infinite currencies. That's hugely wasteful and causes mass inflation. … If you add some centralized backing, like with USD for example, you get way more clout.

Okay. One of the appeals of cryptocurrencies to anti-government types is that there is predictability and transparency over new currency creation, since it's hard-coded in an algorithm. We can find out exactly how many Bitcoins there will be in five years. Granted, forks can change those algorithms, but they're still transparent. Also, forks of the Etherium Classic or Bitcoin Cash type don't really count as inflation, since you cannot send ETC when the receiver is expecting ETH, and likewise with BCH/BTC; they are not interoperable. In other words, the Bitcoin Cash fork did not cause inflation of core Bitcoin.

Now let's consider USD. Do you know how many USD there will be in five years? USD creation is at the whim of legislators and unelected bureaucrats who could collude tomorrow to crash the value of USD by just letting the printing presses run and there's not really anything that most of the users of USD, the normal people, can do about that. Now I'm not saying that such intentional currency crashing is likely to happen, but that lack of control and predictability is why libertarian types would find the idea of backing cryptocurrency with government fiat currency to be nonsense.

[Zpalmtree]

The whole point of cryptocurrencies is that they're decentralized, and can't be controlled by governments. That would defeat the whole point of blockchain surely?

[JonnyNova]

Not necessarily. Lack of centralized trust is just one feature. They have other features like public (but anonymous) ledgers, irreversible transactions, smart contracts, the ability to hold them without a bank account. Features like those could definitely come from a private or central bank.

[nk1tz]

If they were centralized they would most definitely have reversible transactions, and probably NOT be anonymous.

[enknamel]

Not necessarily. Right now cash is anonymous. It changes hands without any record. It has no provenance. And is a centralized currency. There was a joke at the top of the crypto reddit a few days ago about how cash is just more convenient than bitcoin for ordering a pizza. It doesn't have to be government but I would like to see a trusted owner actually own the governance of a crypto currency. Right now it is way too wild west to instill a lot of confidence. Which is great way to make a lot of money quickly. But over the long term I can see a lot of issues coming up.

[dorgo]

>Right now cash is anonymous.

Maybe this is the reason why most governments would like to ban cash? Or at least restrict the amounts being processed by one entity. It's all about control.

[JonnyNova]

A non-crypto solution wouldn't have to have all of these features. These are just some of the possible desirable ones.