|
|
|
|
|
|
by Centmo
1637 days ago
|
|
|
The safest and most effective method for storing wealth that the unbanked currently have is to bury gold jewelry somewhere. Gold holds its value better than fiat, but is not easily divisible and there is a large cost to converting it to/from fiat. Bitcoin keys can also be buried, but if necessary they can also be memorized and transported across borders without risk of seizure. Also, having multiple wallets is not complicated; you may be underestimating the cleverness of the unbanked. The parameters of the Bitcoin code are changeable (and have changed multiple times since inception) via hard-fork based on the 'voting' of the nodes which verify all new blocks and number in the tens of thousands distributed across the globe. The parameters of the protocol are set such that anyone can run a verification node on only a couple hundred dollars worth of hardware, thereby encouraging decentralization. https://river.com/learn/can-bitcoins-hard-cap-of-21-million-... |
|
|
In principle, yes. But look at the clusterfuck that was the BCH fork. Something as basic as blocksize led to an outrageous amount of venom and two communities hating each other. Now imagine if the core devs wanted to change things that more directly affected the relative wealth of early adopters. Could you believe the anger if they proposed that we double the number of eventually mined bitcoins?