Re:Former top official says Fed should ‘Maybe’ create ‘FedCo...
by clhodapp on Saturday May 05, 2018 @01:10AM
(#17000436)
It could be reasonable to somehow have control over things like the difficulty of mining or to be able to spawn new currency at a reduced cost via some sort of master certificate while still allowing transfer without communicating with a central coordinator system. A distributed system is a lot less likely to go down or become completely compromised.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Former top official says Fed should ‘Maybe’ create ‘FedCo...
by GauntletWizard on Saturday May 05, 2018 @01:38AM
(#17000507)
The properties of "unlikely to go down" don't require a trustless blockchain; the attributes of being resistant to a node being compromised don't require trust beyond consensus. git is unlikely to go down and verifiable. Copies of a git repo verified by gpg signatures and repos that only accept commits that pass verification requires only as much distribution as running three instances. The fed can do all of this without giving up any control.
Re:Former top official says Fed should ‘Maybe’ create ‘FedCo...
by clhodapp on Saturday May 05, 2018 @08:16AM
(#17001482)
There is a tremendous difference between "we have three servers so our stuff probably won't go down" and "the system could theoretically remain in use forever even if we disappeared from the world".