Re: decentralized vs distributed payments

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
wrote:

> A pure decentralized system would be much simpler. It would take the
> essential essence of money (a ledger + transactions) and have no other
> constraints.


This is really good. I've had similar impressions about the use of those
words. "Decentralized" became a buzzword before we had the chance to ask
ourselves what other things should be decentralized, such as the
fundamental action of issuing a new unit of account without asking for
permission or going through the hassles of proof-of-something systems.

In my opinion, a better transactional system would allow users to issue
brand new currencies with a click and set the rules for managing the
currency supply (which is clearly centralized in Bitcoin), even if the
ledger hosting and transaction clearing are not entirely decentralized. If
currencies are tools for keeping accounts, people should not need to buy
those numbers first.

Furthermore, decentralization can also be achieved by creating a level
playing field for centralized actors to expose their interactions in a
decentralized way, such as the Web allows centralized players to expose
their web sites using a decentralized system of URLs that no single entity
controls.