It's different in BSV. Decentralisation to us mean that no…
It's different in BSV.
Decentralisation to us mean that no one can control the protocol therefore it's decentralised since Day 1. Because of that everyone operate equally with no power. Obviously for that to happens, there needs to be people who protects it.
On other chains, decentralisation means people who control the network through democratic means (in reality it's just people who runs node) gets to decide the direction of the chain. It's like election but also not really because people don't vote.
For security, it's a question of the double spend problem. If a node have a majority power it can do something about it.
I think the difference of BSV is we believe in law. While the other chains believe in the code. You need both in my opinion.
Scalability we already have it. The direction is clear.
So far, original Bitcoin is still being respected.
Replies
I think the real answer you're looking for is
"What's realistic and practical?"
Do you want a world where an institution got scammed or hacked 1 billion dollar and the response they get is "deal with it, the code is the law"
Or you actually have law that protect your property?
Suppose you live in 2030 and everyone is using your chain and you have people that control the network that can say screw your money let's freeze your coins because we somehow convinced the world to do so. (Just like the recent debate of Satoshi coin and how quantum computer can hack it)
Or you have people who say they want to print more Bitcoins into the network.
That doesn't sound sustainable to me.
Thank you for the detailed explanation.
Yes, what I'm looking for (the answer) is indeed realistic and practical. I see, I had a habit of thinking in terms of the trilemma, but at least the BSV has a different structure than what can be measured by the trilemma scale.