Re: decentralized vs distributed payments

>> In the case of bitcoin the central point of control is the protocol which says "longest chain wins".
>> 
> 
> No. That is not a central point of control, that is just the protocol rule.
> 
> So what about consensus decisions by the developers and miners to change the spec?  Doesnt that affect everyone with a balance, whether they agree or not?  What if bitcoin changed to proof of stake, for example?

Right, those things are not the protocol rule itself.

Bitcoin’s decentralization is a function of the number of developers, miners, full nodes, and users.

Protocol rules are not controlled by any one entity but are instead subject to the consensus of the Bitcoin developer community, so that part of Bitcoin is fairly decentralized at this point in time.

> Any decentralized payment system needs to solve the double-spending problem, and this one does not.
> 
> What defines "solving".  We can all agree double spending is undesirable.  Does it have to be zero, or kept to a certain low level.  For example in fiat currency coins and notes are copied and spent illegally, but the volume is low enough not to disrupt the system.

Those are accurate observations, even Bitcoin does not perfectly solve the double-spend problem, but it does reduce it significantly enough for people to have faith in it.

The system you described does not seem to have any mechanism for addressing the double-spend problem.

Cheers,
Greg

--
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.