But unfortunately, he's got a belief that massive, fragile global-consensus machinery is "cryptocurrency". And that "wildcat banks" or random people issuing "money" is bad. Neither of these are universally true.
If a global-scale highly efficient program allowed consistent transfer of assets between agent's ledger balances, without possibility of interference by unrelated parties, and guaranteed that all agents followed the rules, how is this bad?
DHT-based agent-centric systems like Holochain now allow this to be built; every transaction -- and the full tree of all prior transactions -- is inductively proven to be correct. Even a single non-fraudulent agent in the DHT can detect and report any non-compliant transaction attempt. There is no "50%+1 attack": a full "blackout" of all correct agents is required to perpetrate a fraudulent (eg. double-spend) attack against any agent(s) in the system.
These systems continue to operate, correctly and efficiently, even in the face of devastating "Partition" attacks; your cryptocurrency "money" still works between you and all agents you can "see"; when the network "Partition" is repaired, you can proceed to do transactions with agents in the rest of the network. Very much like cash money, but with full and instant network reach.
As for "wildcat banks"; even Bruce would prefer to use money where every unit is backed by actual wealth, and there is no "fractional reserve" shenanigans, right? Well, governments are never going to issue money like that. But, cryptocurrency options like that are already available, and more are coming.
So, Bruce, if you're reading this -- perhaps it's time to get updated on the state of the art in Cryptocurrency. Because Bitcoin isn't it...
But unfortunately, he's got a belief that massive, fragile global-consensus machinery is "cryptocurrency". And that "wildcat banks" or random people issuing "money" is bad. Neither of these are universally true.
If a global-scale highly efficient program allowed consistent transfer of assets between agent's ledger balances, without possibility of interference by unrelated parties, and guaranteed that all agents followed the rules, how is this bad?
DHT-based agent-centric systems like Holochain now allow this to be built; every transaction -- and the full tree of all prior transactions -- is inductively proven to be correct. Even a single non-fraudulent agent in the DHT can detect and report any non-compliant transaction attempt. There is no "50%+1 attack": a full "blackout" of all correct agents is required to perpetrate a fraudulent (eg. double-spend) attack against any agent(s) in the system.
These systems continue to operate, correctly and efficiently, even in the face of devastating "Partition" attacks; your cryptocurrency "money" still works between you and all agents you can "see"; when the network "Partition" is repaired, you can proceed to do transactions with agents in the rest of the network. Very much like cash money, but with full and instant network reach.
As for "wildcat banks"; even Bruce would prefer to use money where every unit is backed by actual wealth, and there is no "fractional reserve" shenanigans, right? Well, governments are never going to issue money like that. But, cryptocurrency options like that are already available, and more are coming.
So, Bruce, if you're reading this -- perhaps it's time to get updated on the state of the art in Cryptocurrency. Because Bitcoin isn't it...