MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 21:42:59 +0000
From: Monarch <monarch@cock.li>
To: Allen Piscitello <allen.piscitello@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJfRnm4kwHkBLUUOmfzViUwsdAf3LYSTruvHw9+-RbgxSMHLRg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <602b978abcedd92fbed85f305d9d7bfe@cock.li>
	<55E4B8C9.5030606@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org>
	<e786da226b8e9cfaad335454b299ffd5@cock.li>
	<CAJfRnm4kwHkBLUUOmfzViUwsdAf3LYSTruvHw9+-RbgxSMHLRg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <91e79f981126ebe62e30df26e0c7ec50@cock.li>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.9.5
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Your Gmaxwell exchange
Precedence: list

On 2015-08-31 21:24, Allen Piscitello wrote:
> Even so, decentralization is a means to an end - not an end-goal.  It
> is essential for Bitcoin to be a useful alternative, of course.
> 

The justification for the existence of Bitcoins hinges on it.  What is
described in the whitepaper is a system without the trust of third
parties to process electronic payments, this can not exist without
decentralization.  Absent any unforseen revelations this is a
requirement rather than a suggestion or fleeting fancy.  Below a
decentralized Bitcoin you are free to make systems as centralized as
you please without affecting the parent, below a centralized Bitcoin
there is no room to make it less.  We really only have one shot at a
properly bootstrapped, decentralized currency, and it would be a great
shame to mess up the one we have with hasty decision making for
unclear goals.