>> Because the creator of crypto concept never understood why there are centralized institutions in the first place.
You are totally missing the point. Having to rely upon central banks was the fundamental problem being solved.
> The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts.
-Satoshi Nakamoto [0]
Getting central banks out of the picture is original philosophical motivation for developing a digital currency. All of the "cashless society" convenience aspects are secondary features. Everything that follows, regarding ledgers/records/blockchain/double-spending/trust-less is what's needed to make a digital currency work without a centralized authorities that mint money and validate transactions.
> A lot of people automatically dismiss e-currency as a lost cause because of all the companies that failed since the 1990's. I hope it's obvious it was only the centrally controlled nature of those systems that doomed them. I think this is the first time we're trying a decentralized, non-trust-based system.
-Satoshi Nakamoto [1]
Next up, the irreversibility of transactions is a feature, not a bug.
> For many purposes, reversal and arbitration is highly desirable, but there is no way anyone can compete with the arbitration provided by Visa and Mastercard, for they have network effects on their side, and they do a really good job of arbitration, at which they have vast experience, accumulated skills, wisdom, and good repute. So any new networked transaction system has to target the demand for final and irreversible transactions. [2]
> The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts.
Replace "bank" with "cryptocurrency exchange" and the quote still applies verbatim.
I think there is a misapprehension in the original bitcoin design about the "root problem." is the root problem debt? is the root problem globalization? is the root problem capitalism? is the root problem fractional reserve banking? is the root problem mechanisms of governance? is the root problem human neurological wiring and our inability to find stable cooperative regimes that are not disrupted periodically by anti-social violence?
I identify many more pressing problems than than central banks, and trying to eliminate trust as a requirement is a naive and anti-social approach.
despite the fundamental conceptual limitations of bitcoin, its genius is its memetic tendency to coopt human social dynamics and create a whirlwind of FOMO and greed. It actually highlights what our actual problems as a global society are, and less trust is not the answer.
I personally would start from a different point of view. Given that privacy is impossible, and it is futile to try to support the illusion that the world is a limitless and open system, we should double down on trust, and create systems that make it easier to discriminate between actors as more or less trusted, and which improve our ability to reach consensus and maintain it. Systems which make trust more secure.
unfortunately these solutions are unlikely to be embedded in computer networks, but in my opinion will arise from genetic engineering.
You are totally missing the point. Having to rely upon central banks was the fundamental problem being solved.
> The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts.
-Satoshi Nakamoto [0]
Getting central banks out of the picture is original philosophical motivation for developing a digital currency. All of the "cashless society" convenience aspects are secondary features. Everything that follows, regarding ledgers/records/blockchain/double-spending/trust-less is what's needed to make a digital currency work without a centralized authorities that mint money and validate transactions.
> A lot of people automatically dismiss e-currency as a lost cause because of all the companies that failed since the 1990's. I hope it's obvious it was only the centrally controlled nature of those systems that doomed them. I think this is the first time we're trying a decentralized, non-trust-based system.
-Satoshi Nakamoto [1]
Next up, the irreversibility of transactions is a feature, not a bug.
> For many purposes, reversal and arbitration is highly desirable, but there is no way anyone can compete with the arbitration provided by Visa and Mastercard, for they have network effects on their side, and they do a really good job of arbitration, at which they have vast experience, accumulated skills, wisdom, and good repute. So any new networked transaction system has to target the demand for final and irreversible transactions. [2]
[0] http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-sour...
[1] http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-sour...
[2] https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/th...