Author: Mike Hearn 2015-02-12 14:53:08
Published on: 2015-02-12T14:53:08+00:00
In a discussion about the differences between notaries and miners, it is argued that notaries have identity, brand awareness, and large upfront bonds, making them trustworthy. This is similar to the model governments use, and why being a money transmitter in the USA is difficult. Mining, on the other hand, does not have these requirements. The idea of exploring new consensus models with semi-trusted notaries is interesting, but it is not Bitcoin. The discussion also touches on the issue of breaking people's assumptions, with the speaker cautioning against using this logic in the real world. They use the example of starting fires in a wooden house because there is no guarantee it won't burn down in the future. The speaker supports researching and exploring alternative trust configurations, but is not a fan of Peter's approach, which involves causing problems without creating any solutions. There is also a debate about the assumption that people will expect the Bitcoin network to keep zero-conf safe forever and how Bitcoin valuation is tied to that. The speaker argues that the ability to make payments in a few seconds is not an irrelevant curiosity and questions whether BitPay's business model evaporating tomorrow along with all the merchants they support would have any effect on Bitcoin's value.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T16:55:20.092085+00:00