|
|
|
|
|
by oarabbus_
1403 days ago
|
|
>It would be centralized if there were a third actor that mediated all transactions between two parties, e.g. a FOREX exchange or bank that processed the transaction the comment I responded to specified a "money changer". I don't know if you've used one before, but they quite literally are forex broker/dealers. Even if we move the goalposts from the "money changer" which was specified, TOR is not really comparable to in-person exchange (not to mention an individual can certainly be considered a centralized entity). Anyways, sure, let's call it a counterparty if you wish, the semantics debate isn't really relevant to the point. |
|
> Though the money supply did contract sharply, neither trade, commerce, nor industry came to a grinding halt.
> How? People created their own currencies, to substitute for the collapsing money supply. They kept using checks to pay one another, but then, people’s checks began trading within communities. Here’s how Antoin Murphy, one of the few scholars to have studied these strikes, which took place in the 1970s, describes it: “a highly personalized credit system without any definite time horizon for the eventual clearance of debits and credits substituted for the existing institutionalized banking system.”[0]
There is also a great chapter in Money, The Unauthorized Biography that covers it.
[0]https://hbr.org/2010/11/the-irish-banking-crisis-a-par