Snowden's opinion on Bitcoin questioned the figures of the critical world. | CriptoNoticias


Money, the best example that prevents chains from being sensible

According to Snowden, "money is, of course, the best and most famous example of where it has been proven that the barriers are sensible". He pointed out that traditional monetary systems failed and mentioned as examples a large number of uninvited people around the world, Cyprus events, and the Venezuelan and Zimbabwean economies.

In Bitcoin's special case, however, it felt that it could cease to exist and that it only believed it to be a viable exchange currency and that the lack of BTC is worth it.

On the other hand, the former US exile in Russia said he likes Bitcoin events because of their neutrality and irreversibility. "They can not really stop, or vice versa, without the voluntary and explicit involvement of those people." He emphasized, Although it is not yet private money, Bitcoin is the first "free" money.

For private money, Snowden told Wizner that bitcoin competes with krypto currencies, such as monero and zcash, whose transactions are difficult to track and "really private".

Snowden requires better consensus protocols than Labortest and Attendance Test, showing PoW's demand and favoring large investors (electricity and equipment), as well as network dependence on "unrestricted and abominable exploration of rents" from owners of crypto currencies at PoS. However, for Snowden, "the original Bitcoin creator created an exceptionally smart program: a kind of global math competition".

Criptomundo reactions

Ecosystem figures, such as John Carvalho, Nic Carter, Ricardo Spagni and Vitalik Buter, reacted to what Snowden shared.

Bitcoin Developer John Carvalho he wrote that his opinion was not weighted in the ecosystem because he had never been involved. He also said that the complexity of Bitcoin technology and how block chunks are not alone in most of the attributes attributed to them by the attribute "blockchain" and added:I wonder about people relying on an opinion of a person who is not an expert, which I think is a useful reminder. Especially when they just try to sell the book. The intention is that they should have asked an expert to comment, not celebrities. "


Source link